Priorities for London

Susan Hall: Do you have the right priorities for London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Yes, I love this city. It is the greatest city in the world. This is the city that gave me the opportunity to go from the council estate where I grew up to being Mayor of the greatest city on earth. Every day I wake up even more passionate than the last about delivering the promise I made to Londoners to make London a fairer city where all Londoners get the opportunities that our city gave to me and my family.
I am proud that despite years of Government cuts and austerity supported by the Conservative Assembly Members around the Chamber, which devastated our city and our public services, we are delivering the changes that Londoners want to see.
We have prioritised tackling violent crime with our City Hall-funded Violent Crime Task Force, which is working around the clock to keep us safe, patrolling violent hotspots and undertaking weapon sweeps across our city. We have prioritised tackling the root causes of violent crime with our Violence Reduction Unit bringing together experts from the NHS, probation, education, councils, charities and community groups as part of our expanded public health approach to tackling violence.
We have prioritised tackling the climate emergency and introduced the boldest action of any city in the world to tackle toxic air pollution and climate change, including the introduction of the world-leading Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), all this in the face of opposition from Conservative members.
We have prioritised again - after years of inactivity from the previous administration - fixing London’s housing crisis, including starting to build more council homes last year than any year since 1984. We have also given residents and tenants the right to vote on estate regeneration plans and we are doubling our homelessness outreach teams.
We have prioritised making transport more affordable with all Transport for London (TfL) fares frozen for the third year running and millions of journeys taken on the unlimited Hopper bus fare.
We have prioritised making sure that all Londoners have the opportunity to gain from the benefits that culture and sport can bring to their lives and to use both as a tool to steer young Londoners away from crime and gangs and toward education and employment.
My priorities have the support of Londoners. I hope my priorities have the support of the Assembly, too, Chair.

Susan Hall: Thank you, MrMayor. I am pleased to see that you are saying that crime and policing are a priority because you have that in your manifesto. Do you therefore regret your budget?

Sadiq Khan: No, I am really proud of that, unlike the previous Mayor [Boris Johnson], in my first three years I have used all the tools available to increase funding for the police. In my first year I increased the precept the maximum allowed of 2.99%. The previous Mayor never did so. In my second year I raised the council tax to the maximum allowed of £12. The previous Mayor did not do so and was not allowed to do so. In my third year, I raised it to the maximum of £24, plus added business rates to increase the support the police receive. That has paid for 1,300 police officers and has avoided a cliff-edge fall in police officer numbers.

Susan Hall: Yes, I hear what you say but, equally, we have had 67 deaths so far and nearly 2,000 knife crimes with injury. Therefore, the public and Londoners out there would rather see more money going into the police than into some of these schemes that you are doing like £30,000 on bicycle ballet. People do not want to know that that is where their taxpayer money is going. People want to know that money is going into policing. You are the only person in this room who has a policing budget. More money should be going into policing.

Sadiq Khan: We have invested record sums in my first three years as Mayor compared to the previous eight of the previous Mayor. In 2010 the then Chancellor [of the Exchequer] announced massive cuts in the policing budget of £1 billion. We get 80% of our funding from central Government. In the first six years between 2010 and 2016, there was no additional money from the Mayor. In my first three years, we have increased record sums to the police. That is what is paying for our City Hall-funded Violent Crime Task Force. That is what is paying for the additional police we are seeing across London. We have doubled the amount of neighbourhood dedicated ward officers.

Susan Hall: MrMayor, you have increased your culture budget by millions. You have increased your public relations by millions. We want to see money going on the streets. We want to see more police. However much you think you are doing, you are not being very successful at it. Let us face it. As I said, there have been 67 deaths and nearly 2,000 knife crimes. Therefore, clearly, more money should be spent by you on the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Sadiq Khan: Chair, was that a question?

Susan Hall: Yes. Do you think or are you quite happy‑‑

Jennette Arnold: She has not asked you a question. She has made a comment.

Sadiq Khan: I did note that.

Susan Hall: All right, then. Let us put it this way. Are you happy that taxpayers’ money is going on ridiculous things like bicycle ballet and all these cultural events that are going on when around the corner people are getting stabbed to death? Do you think that is acceptable?

Sadiq Khan: What is important is for AssemblyMembers not to mislead the public. To pay for policing, you need to have constant revenue streams. What you cannot do is make a police officer redundant. What the Commissioner‑‑

Susan Hall: No, we all understand that.

Jennette Arnold: No, you will hear the answer. Can we have answer from the Mayor to about‑‑

Susan Hall: He is stating the‑‑

Jennette Arnold: Which question do you want an answer to?

Susan Hall: I am saying: do you not understand that the public out there, Londoners, would rather their taxpayers’ money was spent on looking after the safety of residents as a priority? You can go through a whole list of things you might think are good, but to prioritise means to put money where your mouth is. You have said that your top priority in your manifesto is to keep the people of London safe. You are not doing very well on that and you could do a lot better if you put your hand in your pocket and put more money into the MPS.

Sadiq Khan: The question is?

Jennette Arnold: The question was at the very start, “Do you think”?

Susan Hall: Do you think--?

Sadiq Khan: The audacity of a Member who supports a Government that has cut 22,000 police officers from around the country‑‑

Tony Devenish: Answer the question.

Sadiq Khan: ‑‑a member of a party that has been responsible for cutting 3,500 police officers from our city, 3,500 Community Support Officers, thousands of police staff‑‑

Susan Hall: MrMayor, we are talking about you.

Sadiq Khan: Here you go. I am being interrupted again.

Susan Hall: MrMayor, yes, I will interrupt you because you deflect whenever you can. The truth is we are talking about you. We are talking about your very sizeable £18.5billion budget. We are‑‑

Jennette Arnold: I would much rather have a question, AssemblyMemberHall, so that we can get an answer.

Susan Hall: I am asking the Mayor to keep the subject to what he is responsible for, Chair. He is responsible for the MPS budget.

Jennette Arnold: Can I have a question?

Susan Hall: Do you think that taxpayers’ money and Londoners’ money would be better served going to the MPS so that first and foremost we can keep our residents safe?

Jennette Arnold: That is the question.

Sadiq Khan: I agree. That is why I have increased in record amounts the amount City Hall gives to the MPS. I have diverted monies from business rates to the MPS and have but also invested record sums in diversion and probation. It is really important to bear down on enforcement and the causes of crime as well. We are investing in trying to take action to address the causes of crime. That is why we have set up England’s first Violence Reduction Unit, supported, I would hasten to add, by a Conservative Home Secretary and a Conservative Government.

Susan Hall: You are quite happy, then, that money is spent on bicycle ballet, splash parties and beach parties? You are quite happy that our residents’ money and our taxpayers’ money is spent on things like that instead of putting extra officers on our streets?

Sadiq Khan: Let us deal with both of those things. The two examples given by the AssemblyMember are an urban beach party and bicycle ballet. Let me deal with both of those things.
The urban beach parties began in 2013 and they began in the Royal Docks because the Royal Docks is an Enterprise Zone and they are enabled and entitled to use business rates from the Royal Docks to regenerate the community and attract more members of the community to come in to enjoy the Royal Docks. That is the first point‑‑

Susan Hall: MrMayor, I am talking about‑‑

Jennette Arnold: AssemblyMemberHall, this will not do.

Susan Hall: It is still taxpayers’ money‑‑

Jennette Arnold: No. I am sorry. I will adjourn the meeting if this is going to go on. It is just not good enough. It is‑‑

Susan Hall: It is not good enough, I completely agree, Chair. It is not good enough.

Jennette Arnold: No, excuse me. Do not speak over me. The Mayor has given you the first part of the answer to a two-part question. I would like to hear the second part and I would like to hear that without any further interruptions. Otherwise I shall adjourn the meeting.

Susan Hall: OK.

Sadiq Khan: The first part is that business rates from the Royal Docks are used for regeneration.
The second part is from the London Borough of Waltham Forest being the Borough of Culture. The Borough of Culture is paid for through a number of revenue streams, some from City Hall, some from Waltham Forest, some from trusts, some from sponsorship, some from foundations.
I thought that the AssemblyMember would appreciate the benefits of culture to our city. Culture is really important.

Susan Hall: MrMayor, I do appreciate that culture is important. I equally appreciate that if a priority was ever needed, it is keeping Londoners safe.

Tony Devenish: Hear, hear.

Susan Hall: I am afraid that we gave you the answer on how you could put 1,378 more police personnel on the street and you have ignored us. We identified £83 million that you could put to the MPS, which we on this side would rather you did. I will leave it at that, Chair.

Jennette Arnold: You will leave it at that comment. Thank you.

“Shocking… horrifying… slow”: the Government’s response to removing flammable cladding post-Grenfell

Andrew Dismore: In a recent interview with the Evening Standard, London Fire Commissioner Dany Cotton described the Government’s action on building fire safety since the Grenfell Tower fire as “shocking… horrifying… slow” (Evening Standard, 4 July 2019) and warned that Londoners are at risk because of aluminium composite material on high rise blocks. LFC Cotton continued: “I don’t think anyone in government has responded in a satisfactory manner. We need more to be done. We need for it to be taken seriously.”Do you agree with her appraisal?

Sadiq Khan: I fully agree with London Fire Commissioner DanyCotton [QFSM] that the Government has failed to do anywhere near enough on building fire safety since the fire at Grenfell Tower. Today, the cross-party Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee published a damning report, which agrees that the Government has been - and I quote - “far too slow to react” to the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
After the devastating fire in June2017, the Government promised urgent action to make everyone safe. More than two years later, our building regulation system is still unfit for purpose, we still lack clarity on the basic questions of whether certain types of cladding are safe, and tens of thousands of people continue to live in homes that may be unsafe, with leaseholders facing huge bills for interim safety measures and other safety works.
At every turn, the Government’s attempts to improve the system of building regulations have been far too slow and limited. For instance, an introduced ban on combustible materials applied only to buildings over 18 metres high. The recent fire in Barking was in a building less than this. Similarly, the proposed reforms to the building safety regulatory regime apply only to high-rise buildings rather than the wholesale reform of the system that is needed.
As well as the failure to make regulations for new buildings fit for purpose, the Government’s efforts have also been slow and inadequate in ensuring existing buildings are made safe. It is shocking that it took nearly two years for the Government to agree funding for the remediation of the unsafe aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding in private-sector residential buildings over 18 metres. What is more, the scope of this funding for private-sector blocks and its equivalent for the social sector is far too limited. By covering only ACM cladding in high-rise blocks, the funding ignores fire safety issues involving other buildings and different sorts of materials.
On behalf of thousands of Londoners living in blocks that may be unsafe, I will keep pushing the next Prime Minister to step up and show the leadership we need.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you for that comprehensive reply. On Monday I met with residents from the Paddington Walk development, which was built in 2005. The private-sector leaseholders have been told that they will each have to find between £40,000 and £60,000 to remove ACM cladding on their four blocks, a total of £9million, having already had to fork out £1million between them for fire alarms and waking-watch patrols.
Resident JulieLong is typical. She has paid £20,000 and has to pay another £20,000 on top. I have a copy of the bill sent to her here. Another leaseholder, who is a teacher, faces bills of £40,000. There may also be additional charges not yet costed to remove timber cladding as well as ACM.
Even though the Government has said it will fund private block remediation, the managing agents are still insisting on residents coughing up these huge sums, backed by threats of lease forfeiture, losing their homes; nor will the agents guarantee to repay the money if the funding bid to the Government is successful, only offering credits to their accounts. Altogether, it looks like they are asking for about 5% of the total fund just for this one development alone.
Does this illustrate the complete failure of the Government to get to grips with the demands on private homeowners, too little too late, and will you write to the Housing Minister asking him to intervene on these residents’ behalf?

Sadiq Khan: I will. If the AssemblyMember, Chair, wants to send me the details, I will send representations again to the Government in relation to this issue.
Many of these properties are now unable to be mortgaged for the reasons you have alluded to. Also, many leaseholders simply cannot afford to pay the massive bills they are being sent by their managing agents. One of the reasons we are lobbying the Government to assist in the private sector is because of this argument between the landowner, the managing agent and the leaseholder. We need to continue to persuade the Government to lobby and tell the managing agents that they cannot do this.

Andrew Dismore: Thanks for that as well. After the Lakanal House fire ten years ago, which killed six people and injured many more, then-Mayor BorisJohnson said:
“Is there anything we should be doing to ensure that we do not have a repeat of such tragic blazes? Safety has to be paramount and we will certainly be looking at this to see if there are any lessons that can be drawn.”
Would you think that those lessons apparently included cutting ten fire stations, 14 fire engines and 553 firefighter posts from the London Fire Brigade (LFB), together with ignoring the recommendations of the Coroner, for example, on sprinklers? Should he become Prime Minister, what prospects are there even now for holding BorisJohnson to his words and getting him to reverse the failing record of this Government’s proposed Grenfell delayed reaction and actually doing something to make safe the 10,600 private and 4,600 social‑sector homes still with dangerous cladding in London alone?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, can I say how disappointing it is that some Members are tutting while AssemblyMemberDismore is reading out serious concerns raised by a Coroner at an inquest in relation to a fire that led to tragedy in south London?
The important point is to hope that the next Prime Minister does not let down the victims of fires in tower blocks. The current Prime Minister has let down the Grenfell Tower community. For her to use Grenfell Tower in her final resignation speech beggars belief. I hope the next Prime Minister will learn from his experiences as Mayor and also learn from mistakes made by Prime Minister TheresaMay [MP] and address concerns around fire safety. These are serious issues that do not deserve the tutting we have just heard.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you.

Oral Update to the Mayor's Report

Jennette Arnold: The Mayor will now provide an oral update of up to five minutes in length on matters occurring since the publication of his report. Good morning, MrMayor. Over to you.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for organising for the London Youth Assembly to present me with its recommendations. I hope the London Assembly is as well behaved as the London Youth Assembly is. I know from personal experience that that may not be the case.
Chair, on Monday this week I delivered a speech about the causes of crime. This highlighted new City Hall analysis which truly lays bare the full extent of the link between serious youth violence - which started rising in 2012 - and deprivation, inequality and poverty. You cannot cut police officers and preventative services and ignore the most vulnerable people in our country at the same time as keeping crime low. Those things are fundamentally incompatible.
As the Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner [Cressida Dick CBE QPM] has said, our approach in London is starting to yield results, but we still have a long way to go and we are never going to be able to solve this problem alone. We need the Government’s help. I urge all Assembly Members to join me in calling on the new Prime Minister to acknowledge that this is a national problem that requires an urgent national solution, which involves tackling poverty and inequality, investing in our young people so that we can expand opportunity for all, supporting the most deprived communities in our country, and providing our police with the long-term increase in funding they desperately need.
Since we last met, Chair, I have also been working on a number of other initiatives to improve the lives of Londoners. Some of the things that may not come up during Mayor’s Question Times but are worth a mention include bringing together world-leading climate experts for London’s first ever Climate Action Week, celebrating the biggest ever Pride in London and standing up for London’s values against the growing threat of far-right populism.
I look forward to answering questions during the course of this morning, Chair.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you.

Businesses and no-deal

Leonie Cooper: Are London’s businesses prepared for a no-deal Brexit?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Most London businesses did not feel well prepared for a no-deal Brexit last March [2019]. Since then, we have continued to prepare to avert the very negative outcomes of no deal through initiatives like my Brexit Business Resource Hub.
Unfortunately, nothing looks any clearer the second time around as a no-deal Brexit looms again and the timing will be even worse if we leave with no deal on 31October [2019]. It is just before the Christmas period, which is crucial to so much business. Brexit uncertainty has stalled business investment and productivity growth. United Kingdom (UK) manufacturers now warn of recession. Net migration from the European Union (EU) has fallen since the referendum and employers are finding it more and more difficult to recruit staff. While some larger companies have well prepared contingency plans, they are also pushing the button on factory closures, job losses and/or reverting to stockpiles.
The biggest worry is that most small businesses are not prepared at all. They simply do not have the resources to plan upfront. The shock they will face from a no-deal Brexit is very severe. Three years on from the referendum, we are no clearer as to how our would-be Prime Minister will lead the country out of the mess. They offer business a four-letter word or do or die or debunked nonsense about tariff-free trade. Our businesses deserve better.
The first priority of the new Prime Minister must be to put an end to the chaos and confusion of Brexit. In my view, this means revoking Article50 and giving the British public the final say on Brexit. This is the only way to protect jobs, growth and prosperity for the next generation.

Léonie Cooper: MarkCarney, the Governor of the Bank of England, recently said that businesses will be reliant on what governments are able to do to keep the ports open and to keep trade flowing. Are you confident that the next Prime Minister is going to be able to do this? The impact on London could be severe.

Sadiq Khan: No, I am not. If anybody had a chance watch Newsnight last night, it was shocking and scary in relation to what they talked about. Even if we were able to control what happens on this side of the border, what about on the other side in Ireland? What about the other side in the Channel? Ours is a city of three ports. We have Heathrow [Airport], King’s Cross St Pancras and Tilbury Docks, which serves London as well. That is aside from the other issues.
I am really concerned. You will have seen the rehearsals around a motorway from Kent being used as a car park. I am really concerned about our preparedness for a no-deal situation. FionaTwycross [AM, Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience] has done a lot of work chairing the London Resilience Forum, but we should be under no illusions that this will be extremely painful and extremely difficult.
Also, the worrying thing is, as I said in my original answer, that it comes just before Christmas. Many businesses make lots of profits at the Christmas period, which stands them in good stead for the rest of the year. This is happening on 31October [2019], six weeks before Christmas. I am really worried.

Léonie Cooper: We have heard a lot of talk from one of the potential Prime Ministers claiming that clauses 5(a), (b) and (c) of Article24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade are going to help us if we leave without a deal. That relates to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Do you actually think that this is going to help us?

Sadiq Khan: To be fair, he did not refer to (c). He only talked about (b). He did not realise that there was a (c).

Léonie Cooper: That is right. That is the one he does not know about. Sorry.

Sadiq Khan: Yes. We have looked into which countries rely to trade solely on WTO terms. We could not find a country. We could not find a single country that relies solely on WTO terms because they have trade agreements. We have to be honest about this. When people say that it is possible to trade solely on WTO terms, it is not true. Nobody does it. You need trade agreements.
Secondly, even the reference you made to 5(a), (b) and (c) relies upon agreement from us and the EU. There are no guarantees about that going forward with the EU. That is a good example of big risks being taken on the future of our country.
By the way, the economy is what leads to us being able to afford police officer numbers or the NHS or teachers. Public services rely upon a vibrant economy.

Léonie Cooper: Thank you, MrMayor.

ULEZ

Leonie Cooper: How successful has the ULEZ been at improving air quality?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for your question. We are delivering real improvements in the air that Londoners breathe. We know that the health impacts of air pollution are unacceptable: thousands of premature deaths, stunted lungs in our children and increased risks of stroke and dementia in the elderly. These impacts fall unequally, with those living in deprived areas exposed to around a quarter more pollution.
I refuse to be the Mayor who ignores the crisis and so I am introducing an alert service to warn Londoners about pollution episodes, auditing the most polluted primary schools and delivering low-emission bus zones. Assembly MemberCooper will be particularly keen to know that in the Putney High Street low-emission bus zone, for example, hourly exceedances of nitrogen dioxide have been reduced by up to 99% and annual concentrates by nearly 50%.
The world’s first ULEZ was introduced in April [2019] in central London, in the face of opposition from all the Conservatives on the Assembly. The ULEZ has resulted in around three-quarters of vehicles meeting the required standard. After the first month, there were around 9,400 fewer older, more polluting, non-compliant vehicles seen in the zone on an average day. We have already seen over a 20% reduction in concentrations of NOx since February 2017 at various other locations in central London, when I announced my intention to first implement the ULEZ early. Air quality trends are generally assessed over a longer period and so I will be publishing a more detailed impact on the air quality later this year [2019].
In 2020 we will apply the ULEZ standards London-wide for buses, coaches and lorries. Starting from 2021, we will expand the ULEZ up to the North and South Circulars so that even more Londoners benefit from this ground-breaking scheme. Despite no support from Government, we delivered the ULEZ as planned to safeguard our children’s health.

Léonie Cooper: Thanks very much, MrMayor. I realise it is very early days because it is only just over three months since 8April [2019] when it launched. You just mentioned the Government there and I am concerned that Government inaction in terms of diesel scrappage and action in terms of promoting Heathrow [airport] and allowing Heathrow [expansion] to go ahead is going to undermine your efforts in this area. Would you agree with me that that is the case?

Sadiq Khan: I would. What is even more frustrating is the Government is using the air quality benefits that we are delivering in London through measures like ULEZ and bus improvements to enable the expansion to take place. That is wrong and that will impact the health of Londoners.
However, there is good news because the next Prime Minister is probably going to be BorisJohnsonand BorisJohnson of course is against expansion of Heathrow and is in favour of air quality in London, we hope. I am hoping there will be some progress in this area once he becomes the Prime Minister.

Léonie Cooper: I am looking forward to seeing him lying down in front of the bulldozers, so long as he is not actually in Afghanistan when they start that work.
You mentioned the fact that it had come in on 8April [2019] and some people opposed the implementation. As you know, as the [former] Chair of the Environment Committee, I was calling for it come in in early 2020. Thank you for bringing the ULEZ in earlier than was originally planned with 9,400 fewer vehicles per day, 75% compliance already.
That is great, but what do you think would have been the health impacts if we had delayed, as all the Conservatives here still argue for?

Sadiq Khan: The question that will need to be answered - I am looking forward so much to the election campaign - is what would have happened had we listened to the representations made by those who said, “Do nothing until October 2020 at the very earliest or 2021”. The good news is that because we failed to listen to those making these representations, we have already seen a massive improvement in air quality in Putney High Street, for example. Next door to you in Brixton, there have been huge improvements; in Lewisham, huge improvements. Within the ULEZ area, as I said, there has been a 20% reduction in nitrogen dioxide, where there are air quality monitors from when I first announced it in February 2017.
The good news is we are getting pressure from Londoners to go even further even faster. That is good. That means Londoners are waking up to the dangers of air and that is because we have got air quality monitors around London, the most comprehensive air quality alert system and monitoring system of any city in the world. That is a good compare and contrast from when the previous Mayor buried away research into the consequences of air quality in our city. I am so looking forward to the next campaign. I cannot wait.

Léonie Cooper: Also, MrMayor, there has been opposition from the Conservatives to the idea of expanding the ULEZ. Given the success already in terms of compliance and therefore reducing fumes and toxic air on our roads in the central area, would you agree that the expansion is critical and are we learning lessons from the current central zone?

Sadiq Khan: The lesson we have learnt from the ULEZ, the first phase that I have introduced, is just within two months a 20% improvement in relation to nitrogen dioxide, just the first two months. The question that needs to be answered is this: if central London is benefiting from the policies of the Mayor, why not the rest of London? That is why it is really important to make the case for the ULEZ to be expanded up to the North and South Circulars. It is really important to make the case and we need support from the Government. What we need is a national diesel scrappage scheme to help low-income families, to help small businesses, to help charities. We need resources from the Government but also the powers. What about the River Thames? What about construction? What about housing?
The good news is that the current Secretary of State for Environment [Michael Gove MP], who has been talking the talk, is now supporting [potential] Prime Minister BorisJohnson and so we would hope that [potential] Prime Minister BorisJohnson will have MichaelGove [MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] in his Cabinet because MichaelGove does appear to understand the challenges we face. I welcomed his speech this week at Kew. It was a really good speech and, as I said to you, it bodes well for the future. Let us wait and see.

Léonie Cooper: We can only hope that Government are able to follow. Thank you, Chair.

Hammersmith Bridge

Tony Devenish: Using a fraction of the £350 million that had been earmarked for the Rotherhithe Bridge in the TfL Business Plan, will you commit to fully funding the repair and upgrade works for the Hammersmith Bridge?

Sadiq Khan: TfL is working closely with Hammersmith and Fulham to reopen Hammersmith Bridge for motor vehicles as quickly as possible. Specialist teams paid for by TfL are working tirelessly to ensure a full range of options are properly explored and costed. However, until a single option has been confirmed, TfL cannot know the most appropriate funding stream for repairing this 132-year-old wood and cast-iron suspension bridge. TfL expects that a single option will be agreed in August [2019]. It will then work with Hammersmith and Fulham Council to identify appropriate funding and will consider this as part of its annual business planning process.
The funding that was allocated to the proposed Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf Bridge cannot simply be reallocated to the Hammersmith Bridge. The main reason is that funding for the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf Bridge would have come from TfL’s capital budget. Accounting rules dictate that capital expenditure requires an organisation to have control over the asset in question. Given that Hammersmith Bridge is owned and controlled by Hammersmith and Fulham Council, its renewal cannot be funded through TfL’s capital funding. Anything TfL spends on Hammersmith Bridge must therefore be accounted for as operating expenditure and, as you know, it is this funding that the Conservative Government has completely removed from TfL, an average of £700 million a year.
It is therefore vital that the Government urgently provides certainty of long-term funding for the day-to-day operation and renewal of London’s transport system, including structures like Hammersmith Bridge. This is important not only for TfL but for London boroughs that have been significantly affected by funding cuts and vital for businesses that are seeking certainty that London will continue to be an attractive place to do business. Once the ongoing technical work to understand options and potential costs concludes, we will work with the Government to solve this problem together.
In the meantime I assure the Assembly that TfL, Deputy Mayor HeidiAlexander and I are taking the situation with Hammersmith Bridge extremely seriously. This is why TfL is using its limited operating budget to fund the ongoing design work on the bridge, drawing from a small pot of money that needs to be spread across all borough roads and bridges. This design work is continuing at pace and TfL will soon be in a position to work with the Council to explore funding options for the main construction works.

Tony Devenish: Thank you, MrMayor. There have been some suggestions in the press - and I hope not from TfL - that the bridge may not reopen ever to buses and cars. Will you promise my constituents that there is no truth in these rumours at all, please?

Sadiq Khan: I have seen nothing of that sort.

Tony Devenish: Thank you. There is also a lot of speculation that the bridge could be shut for at least three years. Can you commit to a fast-track reopening of this bridge when you make your decision in August [2019]?

Sadiq Khan: That is a very good question. The concern is - and thank you for articulating that - that it will take a long time to reopen the bridge. I am quite clear - and it has been raised before at Mayor’s Question Time by the Deputy Chairman [Tony Arbour AM] - that we need this bridge reopened as soon as possible.
Just to reassure you, the work that is being undertaken will look into the likely requirements of the bridge, the options available, the timescale and the costs. As far as the timescale is concerned, we want to open it as soon as we possibly can.

Tony Devenish: Thank you. You will appreciate that transparency is important to avoid these kinds of rumours. Hammersmith and Fulham Council has refused the freedom of information (FOI) requests for the engineers reports that were done at the end of last year [2018]. The excuse was security grounds. Will you please instruct TfL, which has copies of these reports, to release the reports publicly?

Sadiq Khan: I do not know about this. Can I look into this? I am not sure about the FOI or security grounds. Without going into the details of this bridge, there are sometimes good security reasons why we do not want reports to be made public, but I do not know enough about this particular case. Can I go away and then get somebody to respond to the AssemblyMember?

Tony Devenish: Thank you. Congestion has increased across southwest London since the buses and cars have had to be diverted across Chiswick Bridge or Putney Bridge, which is causing real hardship for people. Do you have any figures in terms of the level of congestion? This is stopping people getting to school and to work for up to 30 minutes, I am being told.

Sadiq Khan: TfL has been talking to the councils because it is not just Hammersmith and Fulham Council affected. There are other councils around that are affected as well. There are figures available, which I am happy to share with the AssemblyMember if he wants to see them.
One of the things that TfL is regularly doing is reviewing the bus options. If, for example, there are representations or ideas about alleviating some of the congestion by bus routes around the area, clearly not crossing this bridge, TfL is very happy to move quickly and can move quickly. Again, if there any suggestions to reduce congestion, we are open to ideas.

Tony Devenish: Thank you. In terms of your August [2019] date, can you please advise us before it is going to be made public so that we can have a meeting on this? This is clearly the number-one issue for my constituents.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I will agree to ask Deputy Mayor [for Transport] HeidiAlexander to brief the relevant Assembly Members and anybody else who wants to be briefed in advance of the report being made public. The good news is that we are talking about months now rather than seasons. I always get nervous when I am advised a season by which a report will be ready. The good news is that we are being given a month, which is August [2019].
Chair, I will undertake to do that and I will make sure my office and Heidi’s office speaks to at least Tony [Devenish AM], LéonieCooper [AM] and anybody else who is concerned as well. I will send a note to those four, CarolineRussell [AM], LéonieCooper [AM], TonyDevenish [AM], TonyArbour [AM] and Caroline Pidgeon [MBE AM], and anybody else who is interested.

Tony Devenish: Thank you very much.

Zero emission rail services

Caroline Russell: Is Transport for London (TfL) on track for rail services under its control to be zero emission by 2030?

Sadiq Khan: Although there are no zero-emission targets for National Rail, my Environment and Transport Strategy set the ambition that all rail services controlled by TfL should be zero‑carbon by 2030. This is part of my wider actions to reduce London’s carbon emissions in response to the climate emergency. I have published one of the world’s first climate action plans to be compatible with the Paris Agreement on climate. These measures will help us meet my targets for a zero-emission transport network and a zero-carbon city by 2050.
TfL’s action to cut emissions from rail include removing diesel trains from the Gospel Oak to Barking London Overground Line with the full route being serviced by new state-of-the-art electric trains by late summer [2019]. When the Elizabeth line is fully operational, all TfL rail services, including Tube, tram and light rail, will be electrified. TfL is also making the Tube and rail services as energy efficient as possible while delivering the increases in service frequency that London needs. New Piccadilly line trains are to be introduced from 2024. They will be energy efficient through a lighter weight articulated design and trains will also include full regenerative braking capability to recover traction energy and efficient traction motors.
Reaching zero-carbon rail by 2030 depends on securing zero-carbon electricity. TfL has undertaken detailed feasibility work to establish the scale of renewable energy generation it can potentially install across its network and it is currently working to install 1.1 megawatts of solar across its estate. TfL is exploring opportunities to connect the rail network directly to renewable energy sources in London and the southeast and has had positive discussions with potential suppliers earlier this year [2019].
However, even allowing for these opportunities, the majority of electricity supply to Tube and rail will come from the grid. The grid is forecast to decarbonise by over 55% by 2030, but to reach my zero-carbon railway ambition TfL will have to change the way it procures grid electricity, including potentially towards longer-term power purchase agreements with a renewable generator and others. TfL is developing a procurement strategy for achieving this, which will be finalised in spring 2020.
Caroline Russell AM: Great, thank you. Very importantly, you raised the point about the source of all this electricity.

Sadiq Khan: The grid, yes.

Caroline Russell: In my response to both your draft Environment and Transport Strategies, I highlighted the opportunity of using TfL’s enormous procurement power - it is the biggest energy consumer in London - to decarbonise the energy grid. I am really pleased that City Hall switched to a 100% renewable energy provider and that your Transport Strategy, as you said, included an aim for all TfL rail services to be zero‑carbon by 2030.
However, according to your answer to my question in June 2019 on the GLA functional bodies and renewables, currently only 0.01% of the energy consumed by TfL last year was from renewable sources. This is a massive gap. Do you agree that this a failure that needs to be put right, and urgently, particularly as you have so much influence over these TfL contracts?

Sadiq Khan: Can I say, Chair, that this is one question mark? I do not disagree with anything that has been asked in the question, except for the use of the word “failure”. I would say this is a good example for those watching of us putting aside party-political differences and working together. You have been really helpful in this area. You are right; we have to do much better.
Can I just explain what we are doing now? What we are doing now is using a standard grid mix of renewable, nuclear and fossil fuel derived energy, but you are right that we are the biggest consumer in London. We have huge purchasing and so what I have said to TfL - and it is going to do this - is to bring forward a plan by spring 2020. What should excite you, I hope, is the opportunity for power purchase agreements and to be a leader here. Hopefully we can continue to work together to make swifter progress.

Caroline Russell: Certainly, I was looking at your TfL Energy Strategy update from 10July [2019], which was talking about these power purchase agreements. It also referred to a number of solar and onshore wind projects that have planning permission but need contracts to be built. Will you use TfL’s purchasing power to enter those power purchase agreements to get some of these shovel-ready renewable projects off the ground?

Sadiq Khan: I cannot commit before the Strategy is done, but that is the idea. The idea is doing things swifter rather than later because we do not want to wait until the mid-2020s or late 2020s. If there are things ready to go, we would like to go. There are some downsides with long-term power purchase agreements and so we would have to have a diversity of supply, but the spirit behind your question is certainly accepted by me. We want to make sure we move TfL to a place where it is value for money as well as being a leader in this at a time of climate emergency.

Caroline Russell: The risk is that you miss this massive opportunity to support renewable energy projectsand make a bold shift in TfL’s climate performance.

Sadiq Khan: That is a fair point. That is very fair.

Caroline Russell: Given that just 0.01% of TfL’s energy is coming from renewables at the moment, what percentage are you going to be calling for when the energy contracts are renewed, which I believe is in 2022?

Sadiq Khan: First, can I explain? The premise to your question assumes that it is not fluctuating, so just to finish what I was saying, currently the standard grid mix, as I said, is renewable, nuclear and fossil fuel, but the proportions change on a second by second basis, dependent on weather conditions. We have looked at other options to speed things up from the Green Tariff because of the Government changes and less value for money, also renewable energy guarantees of origin. There are some downsides to doing that in relation to it does not bring new flows in. Power purchase agreements are the obvious thing to look into and so we are exploring what we can in relation to that.
Secondly, we are trying to reduce energy consumption. It is really important that we do so, but it is important, as you said, that we increase renewable generation. We want to play our role in doing so.

Caroline Russell: I am out of time, but if you could write to me with some interim targets, that would be brilliant.

Violence Against Women

Joanne McCartney: Do you support End Violence Against Women Coalition’s calls to resist a ‘campaign’ calling for anonymity of suspects in sexual offences cases?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. In my Police and Crime Plan and Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy I have committed to ensuring that survivors of rape and sexual violence are supported to come forward and report it to the police. Over 20,000 sexual offences were recorded in London in the last year [2018]. Sadly, I know that the scale of this horrific offence is likely to be much higher.
The British justice system is based on the principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty and this is something that the media must respect in their reporting. We know that media coverage can be important and has been pivotal in encouraging people to come forward and seek justice in high‑profile cases. For example, more victims came forward following the JimmySavile coverage and Lancashire Police also reported more victims coming forward from the StuartHall case. We have also had other examples like RolfHarris and JohnWorboys [convicted sexual offenders].
We have also seen where media reporting has got it wrong, such as what happened in CliffRichards’ case. Clearly this was deeply distressing and had a massive impact on an innocent man, his family and friends. It is concerning there is a belief that wrongful or false allegations are being made to damage reputations of suspects. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) published guidance confirms that false allegations are rare. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) also confirms there is no evidence suggesting a greater prevalence of false rape allegations than false allegations of other offences. The London Victims’ Commissioner ClaireWaxman had conducted an extensive review into rape cases across London. Preliminary findings highlight a huge imbalance in the way victims are treated by the justice system.
While there are protections and compensation available to those who have been falsely accused, the Victims’ Commissioner and I are working to improve the support for survivors to allow them to receive justice. Some of the ways we are doing this is through support for rape crisis centres, independent sexual violence advocates and improved supported for victims of crime. Blanket anonymity will further increase this imbalance against the survivor. The Victims Commissioner [Dame Vera Baird] and I have also repeatedly highlighted concerns about the impact that excessive disclosure can have on victims’ confidence to engage with the justice system. We need to work together to remove these barriers rather than put more in the way.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you, MrMayor, and thank you for the way you answered that because the campaign started by CliffRichard and PaulGambaccini, both of whom were found innocent of charges against them, simply based on a misunderstanding that there is a false allegation crisis in relation to sexual offences, as they put it. I am glad that you have said that is a myth. There is no evidence of any greater false allegation in sexual offences and rape than in any other allegation.
The call for anonymity of rape and sexual offences suspects seems to me to be the start of a slippery slope where you start to say that these defendants are worthy of anonymity but those defendants who are guilty of murder or child abuse, for example, child negligence, are not. It also gives the impression that those who are making allegations are or should be less likely to be believed. What do you think would be the likely effects of granting anonymity if this campaign was to succeed?

Sadiq Khan: Thanks for the points you made in the question, which were serious and important points to be made. We know that there is an imbalance in relation to attrition and successful convictions of those involved in some of these sexual offences cases and victims and complainants coming forward. A number of victims come forward and then withdraw their statement and do not want to co‑operate with the prosecution.
The downsides of giving anonymity to those accused of these crimes are not only fewer people coming forward and being the victims of this same person because they do not know because it is kept anonymous, but also a further imbalance between a complainant/victim and the defendant and the whole criminal justice system. We have to make it easier for victims and complainants to have confidence.
I accept, by the way, that there are some victims and complainants who may make vexatious complaints. I accept there are some examples in this area where there have been allegations made that are wrong. That does not necessitate us giving anonymity to everyone accused of these offences. That is why it is important to understand the principle but also to realise ‑ and you have raised this before ‑ that issues around disclosure are making it less likely for victims to stay with it once they have reported it than would otherwise be the case. Issues like the cuts made to services for victims makes it less likely for them to stay involved as well. We should make it easier for victims to stay in the process rather than making it more difficult.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you. One of the things that could help those charged but also survivors would be to reduce the length of time it takes for a trial to come to court. What are you, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) and the MPS doing to work with the CPS to ensure that that time is reduced?

Sadiq Khan: This is an important point. Firstly, in very exceptional cases will somebody arrested but not yet charged be named by the police. It happens very, very exceptionally. Once somebody is charged, it is a matter of public record. From the moment somebody is arrested and even when they are charged and then from when they are charged to the trial, there are issues about the time, a huge amount of time. There is a cloud hanging over a potentially innocent offender’s head, and also the trauma, stress and anxiety of a victim and a complainant. The Victims’ Commissioner [Dame Vera Baird] and SophieLinden, Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, are speaking to the police, CPS, the courts and the MoJ about how we can have swifter justice and accelerate the process of these trials.
Often one of the reasons why a victim will withdraw her statement is because of the time it has taken. They want to get on with their life. It is traumatic to relive this experience. It brings back flashbacks and all the rest of it. If we can speed this up, it will lead to less anxiety, less trauma and be better for everyone all around. There is no downside to it.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you.

Support for night time health workers

Onkar Sahota: Hospitals run round the clock, and so do hospital workers. Research by the Royal College of Nursing and University College London has underlined how essential these staff are to keep London operating at night, but also the stresses their shift patterns put on them. As London becomes even more a 24-hour city, the demands on these workers will only increase. What are you doing to build on the work of the Night Time Commission to help night staff in the health sector?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Deputy Chairman. A third of London’s workforce, 1.6million, work at night and 181,000 of these work in the health sector. Whether it is frontline paramedics, GPs running evening surgeries or the dedicated staff who run hospitals around the clock, they are essential to the wellbeing of our city and I pay tribute to them as they go above and beyond the call of duty.
The London Night Time Commission recognises the importance of supporting all night‑time workers. As it has recommended, I am setting up a late‑night transport working group to ensure the transport needs of night workers are met. London does have a comprehensive night bus service with 135 routes carrying 35million passengers each year and we estimate that half of them are workers. The night tube has enabled millions of new weekend journeys at night and contributed to our economy. Off‑peak fares make transport affordable for those working at night but there is more that we can do.
I regularly meet NHS workers and last month my Night Czar [Amy Lamé] visited the accident and emergency department at Lewisham Hospital during one of her regular night surgeries, and a new late‑night transport working group will look into some of the challenges that are raised with her.
We have published guidance to help boroughs to create night‑time strategies supporting my new London Plan and we are researching the benefits of later opening hours and commissioning a night‑time enterprise pilot to see how we can boost London’s high street employees, particularly in the health sector. We must take the lead in ensuring the wellbeing of workers, including those who work at night. My Women’s Night Safety Charter is helping to ensure London is a city where women feel confident travelling and working at night and over 100 organisations have signed up to this.
Finally, my Good Work Standard and London Healthy Workplace Award, helping organisations provide safe workplaces. They are calling employers to ensure night workers have the same support and welfare services as daytime workers.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor, for that. As you said, there are 1.6million night-time workers, of which 100,000 are from the health and social sector. They are the second-largest group, but despite this, they are not represented on the Night Time Commission. I wonder if you would give some thought to whether they could be involved in the Night Time Commission.

Sadiq Khan: I agree with that. The work of the Night Time Commission was the publication of a report. What we are going to do is a working group in relation to implementing the recommendations. It will involve workers from the healthcare system. It is very important.

Onkar Sahota: Great, thank you. The other thing of course, as we know, awkward commutes on reduced night-time services are a feature for nightshift workers. In 2017 you announced a review of the bus services to London hospitals and the Night Tube and so at least that has helped to some extent and thank you for that, but what further plans do you have to review the transport system so that night-time workers, particularly those in hospitals, can get to their workplaces easily?

Sadiq Khan: This is really important. One of the things we are doing is that the Late Night Transport Working Group that TfL has will look into this sort of issue. Separately, when it comes to expanding bus services in outer London, we will particularly look at routes that go towards hospitals, which are busy hubs, from town centres to hospitals or from other places to hospitals, which will help workers. That is one example of something used 24 hours a day that needs better public transport. I am encouraged by the changes that are coming out in London. One of the groups that will benefit are hospitals and primary care centres as well.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor. Secondly, of course we normally associate the night time with rest and recreation, but of course these healthcare workers get none of these two things. What can you do to make the environment around hospitals more pleasant and safe so that night-time workers can get some recreation, some fun?

Sadiq Khan: You raise a really important point. There are two things people associate with the night-time economy. One is antisocial behaviour, two is leisure. There is a third, it is work, people work in the night-time economy, and it is really important. The draft London Plan has a number of policies to support the quality of life you talked about around the public realm, around safety, security and resilience to the emergencies, around supporting the night-time economy, and that includes the workers you are referring to, so there are various policies. I can send you a letter setting them out, that is HC6D7D10, which specifically addresses the new draft London Plan, the fact that we are a global 24-hour city and we have got to make sure we address issues like rest and recreation that you referred to for those that work in the night-time economy.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you very much. Of course the local universities and University College London (UCL) have done a lot of research around this, the low-paid NHS staff who work at night and struggle to afford places to live nearby, so what more can we do to address the cost of living pressures on these night‑time workers, particularly in the healthcare sector?

Sadiq Khan: One example of the opposite of business as usual is the scheme we did with St Ann’s Hospital. We have a scheme which has 800 homes, at least half of which are genuinely affordable, where NHS workers get first dibs, the complete opposite of business as usual. We have more schemes like this. The London Estates Board is working with the NHS on surplus public land. I have set out six tests in relation to surplus NHS land. What we do not want is clinical needs being sacrificed to make a quick buck from trusts. So the six tests are there and we are going to make sure we work with the trusts to make sure they have a revenue stream to improve clinical needs, but we have housing that is affordable to Londoners. That means genuinely affordable, rather than dodgy demolition. There will be other schemes coming onstream. Social housing, London Living Rent and shared ownership are just some examples of the sorts of house that NHS workers desperately need.

Onkar Sahota: Great. Thank you, MrMayor, for that.

St Ann’s Hospital site

Sian Berry: How has your work on the proposed development at the St Ann's Hospital site in Haringey helped to make this an exemplar of community-led development, and not just a business-as-usual, developer-led project?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for your question. Before I became Mayor, there was planning permission at the St Ann’s Hospital site for 470 homes, of which just 14% were going to be affordable. This would have been a shocking waste of this opportunity to use public land for public good.
That is why we took the chance to intervene and we have transformed the plans for this site. It will now deliver an estimated 800 homes with at least 50% affordable. That represents a six-fold increase in the total number of affordable homes.
We were able to achieve this by using my new London Land Fund to buy the site from the National Health Service (NHS) Trust. This gave the NHS Trust the funding it needed to invest in new clinical services and gave us the chance to work with the Council and the community to make a far better scheme. Thanks to our involvement, input from the Council and the work of the local community group, the St Ann’s Redevelopment Trust (StART), the scheme now includes at least 50% affordable housing, the majority of which will be for social rent, at least 50 community-led homes, making St Ann’s one of the largest community-led housing schemes in London, and new council homes alongside London Living Rent homes, for which NHS staff get first dibs.
Getting to this position has taken time and work not just from my team but also from the directors of StART, who have been working together under a memorandum of understanding signed last year [2018]. We expect to bring the formal process for selecting a development partner soon. The terms of this tender have been developed by my team with StART directors’ involvement and they will continue to play a central role for the community to play as this scheme progresses. The role of StART will be critical to delivering the community‑led homes and we hope there will be opportunities to go even further in providing more affordable housing once a partner is in place.
I have been determined to make sure St Ann’s is an exemplar of as many of my housing priorities as possible, which is why council homes, community-led homes and London Living Rent homes for NHS staff at the heart of our plans. Clearly, there will be practical and financial limits to what we can achieve and the final details will involve compromise on all sides, but I hope everyone will agree that the future of this site has now been transformed for the better.

Sian Berry: Thank you, MrMayor. To clarify a couple of next steps, you said it is going out to tender to developers very soon on the terms that you have just stated: 800 homes with 50% affordable. Has StART, the community land trust that came up with this idea in the first place, agreed to those terms and the terms of their working going forward?

Sadiq Khan: The Deputy Mayor for Housing [and Residential Development, James Murray] meets regularly with StART. There have been a number of meetings and they have been involved throughout this process.

Sian Berry: Have they signed off it going to tender? I understand that not to be the case.

Sadiq Khan: There have been regular meetings. They have been involved throughout. I cannot give you the answer in relation to the specific tender going out because that would be subject to discussion between the Housing team and StART. I am not sure if you are suggesting that they have not been involved in the process.

Sian Berry: They have been involved in the process up to now, but have they signed off going forward to tender?

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure about whether they have signed off the tender process, but I can get someone to write to you about that.

Sian Berry: OK. I wanted to go through some of the details of the scheme as it stands from the plans in the context of the agreed vision for the site, which says:
“The scheme will be used in future as an example to others that such schemes can be financially viable and deliverable.”
On the proportion of genuinely affordable homes, you were talking about 50% there. StART’s plan and request was for a minimum of 65% and they want 100%. They made plans to do that. The number of community-led homes you said was 50 out of potentially 400 genuinely affordable homes. That is just 12% of the affordable homes.
In terms of being community-led and an exemplar scheme, it seems things have been watered down. The vision itself now says “community-focused” instead of “community-led”. Instead of StART being the community group to work with and heavily involved, it seems they are now part of a wider steering group that they get to sit on and, at the end of it, they get to bid for these 50 homes, this handful of community homes.
Is this really an exemplar? Is it not basically now a business-as-usual developer-led type of scheme?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I know there is a mayoral election coming up, but we have to be sensible about these things. This scheme began with 400 units of housing with 14% affordable under a dodgy definition. It has gone from 400 units of housing with 14% under a dodgy definition of affordable to 800 units of housing with 50% genuinely affordable‑‑

Sian Berry: MrMayor, that is a great improvement. Also, can I commend you on the homes‑‑

Sadiq Khan: You seem not to have mentioned that during your three-minute question.

Sian Berry: In terms of numbers‑‑

Sadiq Khan: If you ask a three-minute question, can I give a three-minute answer?

Sian Berry: That is fine. In terms of numbers, you have made a great improvement‑‑

Sadiq Khan: No, clearly. This is silly. We will have ten months of this, Chair.

Sian Berry: MrMayor, do not interrupt me. You have made a great improvement in terms of numbers and the NHS-focused homes are a great thing, but in terms of it being an exemplar of community-led housing I am not sure we are there.
What kind of reaction are you expecting from people coming to see the exemplar scheme? They are just going to say, “I can see schemes like this all across London”. It is not the community-led housing that was in the original community vision, is it?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, in response to that speech, I am happy for the Member to give me examples of any other scheme that has gone from 14% of 400 to‑‑

Sian Berry: You know that community-led is about the way it is managed and about community control. It seems like this is going to be developer controlled. It seems to show a lack of imagination from your Housing and Land team.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, the phrase that will be used on a Green leaflet coming to you soon is, “Business as usual”. It clearly is not business as usual if we have gone from 14% of 400 units that are not genuinely affordable to 50% of 800 genuinely affordable units. That clearly is not business as usual.

Sian Berry: It is an improvement but it is very much along the lines of many other schemes you are doing across London. In terms of community‑‑

Sadiq Khan: On a Labour leaflet coming soon is, “Green U-turn”.

Sian Berry: ‑‑ can I ask that you do meet StART before it goes out to tender and hear their concerns? You seem unaware of them.

Sadiq Khan: Again, Chair, you see, this is misleading the public. Deputy Mayor [for Housing and Residential Development] James Murray and my team have met regularly with StART but we are not going to‑‑

Sian Berry: When did you last meet StART, MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: We are not going to use StART to make cheap points. We are going to work with them to improve the scheme. Because of their input, we have gone from a situation where this scheme was going to be sold as 14% under a dodgy definition of affordable housing but‑‑

Sian Berry: MrMayor, you cannot just keep saying those numbers to me. I am afraid I am out of time. I really hope you will meet StART before this scheme goes out to tender. Thank you.

Jennette Arnold: Can I just ask Members: within our procedures, if you want to make a comment, then just remind us. If you are going to ask questions to the Mayor, you cannot have it both ways. You have to give the Mayor the opportunity to answer.

Sian Berry: The Mayor was being very repetitive saying those numbers, I am afraid.

Jennette Arnold: That is not for you to determine. I would ask you to try to determine whether you are going to use this as a platform for commentary and speeches and you can use that in your time. I do not have a problem with that but let us know. However, when you ask a question to the Mayor, it is reasonable and respectful for you to give him time to answer.

Sian Berry: Apologies. My Group is very short on time and he was repeating himself. Thank you, Chair.

Sprinklers

Navin Shah: There is an outcry for retrofitting of sprinklers in high-risk and high-rise buildings. The Coroner in 2013, after the Lakanel House fire ten years ago, recommended consideration of ‘retrofitting of sprinklers systems’ in high-rise flats. The Leader of the Opposition this month has stressed the need for retrofitting of sprinklers and called for radical changes to legislation. The Dep Mayor and Fire Commissioner too have supported retrofitting of sprinklers in high rise residential blocks and supported London Assembly’s report to make installation of sprinklers mandatory in residential and buildings where vulnerable people may be at risk. What steps have you taken to help to retrofit high-risk buildings accommodating vulnerable people in London?

Sadiq Khan: AssemblyMemberShah, thank you for raising this important issue and for your work on the Assembly’s report, Never Again, which looked into this in great detail. We must do everything possible, as I said to AssemblyMemberDismore, to ensure a fire like that at Grenfell Tower never happens again. This includes retrofitting existing buildings to improve their safety and ensuring that new buildings are built to the highest fire safety standards. I have called on the Government to provide funding to retrofit existing buildings with sprinklers and I support the LFB’s campaign on this issue. Buildings that accommodate vulnerable people should be prioritised in any retrofitting programme.
This month I wrote to the Government about fire safety standards in care homes following the serious concerns raised by the LFB and called again for sprinklers to be made mandatory in these buildings. In May [2019] I wrote to the Government in response to its consultation on fire safety in schools, urging them to listen to the LFB’s advice and make sprinklers mandatory in all new schools and in major refurbs too. Additionally, my Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience, FionaTwycross [AM], recently hosted boroughs and housing providers at an event focused on promoting good practice with sprinklers, which I was very pleased to be able to attend. The Deputy Mayor, the Fire Commissioner [Dany Cotton QFSM] and London Councils also wrote to the Secretary of State calling for further action on fire safety from the Government, including on sprinklers.
In terms of new buildings, building regulations should be changed to require sprinklers in all purpose-built blocks of flats, schools, homes and buildings where vulnerable people live, such as care homes and sheltered accommodation, as well as buildings of any type over 18metres. For the first time, my draft London Plan includes a specific policy that requires all development proposals to achieve the highest standards of fire safety and it encourages the use of automatic fire suppression systems, such as sprinklers. I also support the national Labour Party’s proposal for a new Decent Homes Standard, which would include the retrofitting of sprinklers to existing blocks.

Navin Shah: Thank you, MrMayor, for the work you, as well as the LFB, do for additional fire safety that is so desperately and urgently required. The Government’s failure to accept the no-brainer of retrofitting sprinklers in high-rise buildings is putting lives at risk of both residents as well as firefighters.
Given this reckless lack of action from the Government, I wish to raise two questions to you. Will you put in place a strategy to identify possible sources of funding to retrofit sprinklers in high-rise buildings, residential buildings, in London?

Sadiq Khan: In relation to funding we have in City Hall, the funding we receive on housing is ring-fenced for housing. We cannot breach the conditions that we have been given for the funding from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. What I have done is used the reserves we had and also raised council tax to support the LFB in relation to the additional equipment it needs, learning the lessons from Grenfell Tower. That was, roughly speaking, £6million in yearone and that will be £6million going on some of this new equipment we have now received. We simply do not have the funding from City Hall.

Navin Shah: I appreciate the funding constraints here. It is a question of seeking other partners from the industry and so on to see how, from City Hall, from your office, we can prioritise this so that something is done rather than waiting forever.

Sadiq Khan: I am really happy to arrange for the Deputy Mayor [for Fire and Resilience] to meet with you to discuss potential funding options. I am more than happy to look at potential funding options. The obvious one is the Government, but if there are other options, of course we will look into that.

Navin Shah: Yes. The second question is that you mentioned a report for sprinklers to address immediate problems of high-risk buildings recommended the setting up of this London sprinkler retrofitting fund. That was £5million over a five-year period. I fully appreciate the funding constraints that we have and so during the draft budget discussions I came up with an initiative saying that to kick-start in London retrofitting of sprinklers, you could allocate something like, let us say, £1million worth of funding for retrofitting purposes, which would have put £1,000 toward 570 dwelling units, which would then be safer than they currently are.
Can I urge you once again to prioritise funding for sprinklers to kick-start this very important initiative and show London means business when it comes to fire safety of our residents?

Sadiq Khan: The good news is there has already been a kick-start in London, because some councils have used their own funding to install sprinklers in buildings in which they are the landlord, so there has already been a kick-start. If you are suggesting starting work in London leads to a kick-start, some councils have done that.
However, the reality is that affects a fraction of the homes in London. That is just those social rent homes. What about those that are private; what about those care homes; what about halls of residence; what about commercial buildings; what about schools? That is why we need a proper plan from the Government to address this issue. Yes, some councils are doing this and we support them in relation to doing this. The LFB is helping. I support the national Labour Party for raising the Decent Homes Standards, which will lead to retrofitting on sprinklers, but what we need is proper investment from the Government.

Navin Shah: Deputy Chairman, I will just conclude by a comment that strategically this is something which also needs to be looked at by your officers to see what we can do to help the councils and initiate our own retrofitting fund process for sprinklers. Thank you, MrMayor.

Cancellation of the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf Bridge

Caroline Pidgeon: Do you still support a bridge from Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf for pedestrians and cyclists?

Sadiq Khan: I have always made clear my support for a new walking and cycling bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. I want to be the Mayor to make it happen, but it cannot be at any cost. I set ambitious but much-needed targets in my Transport Strategy for 80% of Londoners’ trips to be on foot, cycle or by using public transport by 2041. I hope this bridge will help to meet that aim and I continue to support a bridge as the right, long‑term solution.
Despite considerable effort by TfL to minimise the cost of what is a well‑designed and technically feasible solution, the sheer scale and the complexity of providing an opening bridge on this part of the river with the increased costs means it is currently unaffordable. The scheme’s costs are now expected to be substantially higher than originally forecast, so I agree with TfL that this is a reasonable decision to take for now. In my view, something needs to be done in the short term to address the transport needs in this area.
The original forecast was between £100million and £200million. In the 2018 TfL Business Plan [2019/20 to 2023/34], there was an allocation of £350million for this bridge. The scheme is now forecast to cost around £463million with an upper limit of more than £600million.
TfL is looking at options for a fast ferry as a way of providing cross‑river walking and cycling connectivity. Options for a ferry service being considered include a roll‑on roll‑off style service using electric or hybrid vessels. This would be considerably cheaper than building a lifting bridge and the service could be up and running more quickly. This is alongside the wider investment in walking and cycling across the Rotherhithe Peninsula. This includes delivering Cycleway4, a new cycle route from Rotherhithe to Peckham, and progressing an expansion of Santander Cycles across Canada Water.
The valuable work that has been done to date to demonstrate the technical and operational feasibility of the bridge will be concluded so that it can be used in the future. This means there will be a well‑developed plan ready to be picked up in the future when financial circumstances allow and if costs can be reduced. I will continue to lobby the Government to ensure we can secure steady and sustained investment for the capital, which can allow for sensible investment decisions to be delivered for London in the long term.
Deputy Mayor for Transport HeidiAlexander wrote to the Chair of the Transport Committee and offered to meet to explain the challenges. I understand Heidi and DavidRowe from TfL are meeting with the Committee tomorrow and they look forward to discussing this matter in more detail then.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you for your update. I am disappointed with this decision. In May 2016, just after you were elected, you said that this bridge was a great project. As recently as last November [2018] you said the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf crossing is “an important and a unique part of my vision for healthy streets”, and I agree with you.
You have stated that the increasing costs of the bridge is a big factor. The latest estimate states the top cost is now £602million, yet in September 2018 the top cost was £595million. It is only £7million different. Why have you changed your mind?

Sadiq Khan: The fluctuations will be discussed tomorrow by Heidi and DavidRowe. I do not agree with the figures in relation to the top end. The top end is now between £370million and £602million and they use various factors to go for‑‑

Caroline Pidgeon: Previously it was £250million to £595million. I am saying the top end is still roughly around the same. What is it that has really made this decision take place to cancel the bridge?

Sadiq Khan: The additional costs were not there before in relation to what we think the bridge may cost. TfL has now forecast the bridge based on brackets. It forecasts the bridge will cost around £463million. You mentioned the top end, but the figure it has is £463million and it is only going one way at the moment. That is its concern.

Caroline Pidgeon: Will you agree to a full, independent evaluation of all of the designs for a Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf bridge to understand these escalating costs, whether it is simply the design choice that TfL has made or whether there is something here that is more complex?

Sadiq Khan: As a result of the concerns raised by AssemblyMemberDuvall and you not too long ago, TfL did get the various designs looked at independently. I will forewarn DeputyMayorAlexander and the TfL expert and at tomorrow’s Committee hearing they can talk you through the various reviews that have been undertaken.

Caroline Pidgeon: Could those be published, MrMayor, so that we can see? We need to understand because those of us who support this project want to understand how it has gone up so much.

Sadiq Khan: I am very happy for you to raise it tomorrow at the Committee with the Deputy Mayor in relation to the possibility of publishing some of that stuff. I am not on top of the details of the review but I am happy for you to raise that with HeidiAlexander and TfL tomorrow.

Caroline Pidgeon: You believe an independent evaluation has been carried out on all of the options?

Sadiq Khan: It has because, if you remember, you were in favour of a certain option. There was concern that some work had been done on one option and we should run with that and I said, “Hold on a second. We have to go through the proper procurement process”, learning the lessons from the Garden Bridge. Then there was some concern raised about that process.

Caroline Pidgeon: Yes, the procurement.

Sadiq Khan: My understanding was the decision taken by TfL was endorsed by an independent peer review by the Institution of Civil Engineers, but I am happy for you to discuss that with the experts and Heidi tomorrow. If they can publish that, I am happy for them to do so.

Caroline Pidgeon: That would be helpful. You are committed to this project; we have talked about it many times and I know you are. It fits in with your whole Healthy Streets agenda. You know you have the power to direct TfL to build this bridge. Given the budget constraints, I know, will you direct TfL to proceed with this much‑needed bridge at this location?

Sadiq Khan: The question you are asking is whether I will agree to potentially £600million‑plus being spent on this bridge, and the answer is no. We have seen with the previous Mayor [Boris Johnson] what happens when you become fixated with a project and a bridge, even though common sense is telling you and experts are telling you it is not value for money and is not a sensible use of taxpayers’ money.
The Garden Bridge started off costing tens of millions of pounds. In the end it would have cost more than £200million and the previous Mayor’s fixation led to £400million being wasted. We have to be pragmatic about these bridges. Sorry, I am being heckled by somebody.

Gareth Bacon: £400million?

Caroline Pidgeon: It is my question, AssemblyMemberBacon.

Sadiq Khan: I beg your pardon, £43million. I had the ‘4’ bit right anyway. £43million. What is important is that we are pragmatic about this bridge. I want it to happen. I still want it to happen. That is why we are going to finish the current piece so that work is completed and we can revisit it if we can reduce the costs. If you are saying that review work can lead the costs being reviewed, I am very happy to have that undertaken. Why not? It is a really important project.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you very much.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, that was my fault. I said £400million. I meant £43million and that led to the intervention of GarethBacon [AM].

Jennette Arnold: OK, thank you for that.

Looked after children

Fiona Twycross: A number of reports have recently served as a reminder of the challenges faced by looked after children including around advocacy and access to higher education. Could you provide an update on your support for children in care and care leavers?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. It is unacceptable that looked‑after children and care leavers can have poorer educational attainment and poorer employment prospects than their peers. While I do not have a statutory duty in this area, I am committed to taking action where I can to make a difference.
From City Hall we are supporting local authorities to provide for looked‑after children and care leavers. I have already waived the GLA precept for boroughs who exempt care leavers from paying council tax. We guarantee a place at the GLA apprenticeship scheme assisted assessment centre for all applicants who have been in care and meet minimum shortlisting requirements. We have identified care leavers as an at‑risk group in my European funded programmes. These are just some of the commitments I made when I signed up to the Department for Education’s care leave covenant in October 2018. Tomorrow we are bringing London local authorities together at City Hall to encourage more boroughs to sign up to the covenant. Together we can help more care leavers to live independently.
Through the European Social Fund (ESF) I signed the Care Leavers into Work project that supports young people into education, employment or training. I am commissioning my next ESF Programme, which highlights care leavers as a particularly vulnerable group that needs targeted support. I have also invested in the London Children in Care Council funded by Team London. Twenty 12 to 20-year-old council members received peer research training. Their research raises awareness of the key issues of education, budgeting and accommodation. These same young people are also peer advocates for looked‑after children right across London. Many of my Young Leaders summer project support looked after children. Central Greenwich Children’s Centre delivers peer‑to‑peer live skills training for and designed by care leavers.
I am proud that 16% of my peer outreach team have key experience. The team works throughout the year to engage young Londoners in City Hall’s work. Each year they co-ordinate an event as part of the National Care Leavers’ Week. We are committed to widening participation so that more Londoners can study on the higher education course best for them.

Fiona Twycross: Your Care Leavers into Work Programme is funded, as you noted, by the ESF. Have you or your team assessed the impact of losing access to European funding on future programmes for this particularly vulnerable group?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, we are concerned. The good news is the ESF support will not end until 2023, unless we stay in the EU in which case it carries on indefinitely. We are OK until then. The current Prime Minister [Theresa May MP] announced a UK Shared Prosperity Fund and the idea is that will be used to replace the ESF. We will have to wait and see if the new Prime Minister will continue with the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. The key ask we had for the Government was we should do no worse with the UK Shared Prosperity Fund than we do with the ESF.

Fiona Twycross: The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Education for Young People recently found that care leavers in schools are not provided with the skills necessary to manage their money in preparation for adult life, which care leavers start at 18. Given the lack of attention of Government on the financial crisis facing London schools, are you able to plug the gap to support care leavers to learn these essential financial skills?

Sadiq Khan: Yes. This issue of financial literacy is important. You will be aware, of course, of the summit held in November last year [2018] that brought together education providers, banks, charities, technology companies and others to identify the challenges of improving financial skills to young people. We are doing some work in relation to this area you have talked about. It is important that we give better financial literacy to this group and we are keen to fill the gaps that currently exist to do just that.

Fiona Twycross: Thank you.

Metropolitan Police and National Crime Agency Cooperation

Unmesh Desai: How are you and the Metropolitan Police Service working with the National Crime Agency to tackle cross-border crime?

Sadiq Khan: The threat from serious and organised crime is increasing both in volume and complexity. This picture is consistent across the country where crime, and in particular violent crime, is rising. I have been consistent in saying that tackling violence is my number one priority.
I know that the MPS is working hard, including in partnership with the National Crime Agency (NCA), to address this. The MPS collaborates with the NCA across a range of serious threats such as child sexual abuse and exploitation, modern slavery, money laundering and drug and firearms trafficking. It also works with the NCA on another area of growing complexity and volume, organised cyber and online‑enabled crime. The NCA co‑operate with the MPS, international partners and private companies to protect our citizens and our economy. The MPS works closely with the NCA’s regional organised crime units and other forces to target county drug lines, demonstrated by the co‑ordinated raids that took place against offenders in May this year [2019]. I have supported the collaboration from City Hall by providing £3million from the London Crime Prevention Fund to the response and rescue projects, which helps young Londoners affected by county lines.
There is no doubt that across the board the increasing sophistication of organised criminality represents a real threat to Londoners. In order to address this, the police, including the NCA, are desperate for increased resources to invest in the officers, technology and training required to keep pace with the threat. The Chief Inspector has confirmed, in his annual report that our police are struggling to meet the rising demand and that more officers are needed. This is a view supported recently by five former MPS Commissioners.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, MrMayor. There was some good stuff there. You have talked about county lines and some co‑ordinated raids. Can you be a bit more specific on what you and the MPS’s co‑ordinated approach and working to prosecute gang leaders that threaten vulnerable children in particular?

Sadiq Khan: Yes. Thank you for the huge interest you take in this. Educating Londoners about the cross‑border crime that takes place is important and I am grateful.
There are some good examples in the recent past. Last year [2018], five men were convicted after the MPS’s Trident Gangs identified two county lines from Hackney into Cambridgeshire, which operated for 12 months. It is a good example. In April this year [2019] three gang members from London were convicted of human trafficking offences. They were using young and vulnerable people from London to transport and sell drugs in Hampshire. Another example I can give you is that in June [2019] six members of a county line drug gang were convicted of shipping drugs from London to Wiltshire and jailed for over 26 years. These are some examples. It is a good example of the MPS leading the way around the country, working with the NCA as well.

Unmesh Desai: In this area, you and your Deputy Mayor [for Policing and Crime, Sophie Linden] and the MPS deserve congratulations.
We have talked about Brexit earlier in the context of business. In the context of crime and security, we know that international co‑operation is obviously important in tackling organised crime in a global city like London. Are you concerned that organised criminals will try to take advantage of a no‑deal Brexit?

Sadiq Khan: The last 24 hours have given us a good example of the advantages of an extradition agreement. We have had extradited to this country the brother of the man responsible for the terrorist attack in Manchester. This took two years to get this extradition done. We have to deal with the EU or anybody in the EU27 where anybody who is suspected of an offence can be extradited to our country in hours. We saw that in 2005 in relation to one of those responsible for the July bombing in London.
People need to understand that if we leave the EU, if there is a no‑deal Brexit, not only will we have lack of shared information on DNA on people with convictions and on passenger lists of people coming to our country, but even the possibility of extraditing people accused of serious crimes will be made more difficult.
Therefore, if you are a criminal, you want there to be a no‑deal Brexit because you know it will be more difficult for the authorities to trace and track you. That is why it is important for us to wake up on the consequences of us leaving the EU, but even worse the consequences of leaving without a deal.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, MrMayor.

Governance and Leadership at the OPDC

Navin Shah: [to the Interim Chief Executive] What will be the main priorities of the incoming Chief Executive?

Liz Peace CBE, Chair, OPDC: Navin Shah AM: Thank you Chair. The question touched upon the governance and leadership issue. You mentioned the situation with the chief executive. Can I ask, David, as the current Interim Chief Executive, what will be the main priorities of the incoming Chief Executive?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Thank you very much for the question. Very much building on what Liz has said in her introductory remarks, I have come into an organisation that has spent a considerable amount of time preparing the ground to see regeneration happen in the area. The focus has been very much on establishing the OPDC, very much on trying to create the planning framework to enable development to happen and also, of course, crucially, preparing the ground to try to secure some funding in order to bring land and infrastructure forward.
Now that we are in the final stages of the planning process - because the final hearing for the planning inspector to review our draft Local Plan is on 18July[2019] - we are confident that we will have a Local Plan adopted in the next few months. That then gives us the basis for moving ahead with a programme of drawing down the HIF funding, the £250million that Liz has already mentioned. Secondly, it then gives us the basis to really begin the process of land acquisition, which is going to be very important for our first phase development. Thirdly, it also gives us the basis to start to deliver some early sites and the infrastructure that is necessary to develop those sites. That primarily is about opening up a major new access road through the north end of Old Oak, which is necessary in order to secure development, and secondly to provide the energy and utilities infrastructure which currently is not there at the capacity we need to bring new homes and new employment to the area.
What does that mean in terms of a Chief Executive’s priorities? It is very much to ensure that we have the capability within the team to, if you like, move from planning and strategy into delivery. That is why, again, as Liz mentioned in her opening remarks, in the last couple of months we have moved to strengthen the senior team. We have recruited recently a Director of Land and Property who has a lot of experience and is very able. We have also brought in a Director of Development from the commercial sector who again has a lot of very useful senior-level experience. I have also supplemented the team with two senior consultants who have a very long senior track record at delivering comprehensive regeneration projects. I think the senior team now is poised to undertake those priority areas of work that I have mentioned.
The second thing, though - and this is very important - is that we also need to have a very serious engagement outside of the OPDC with a range of organisations. It is quite a comprehensive and complicated picture, but there are some key agencies that we need to work very closely with. That includes Network Rail, which is the major landowner for our early-phase development. We have very good relationships, I am pleased to say, at a senior level with Network Rail. Secondly, obviously Homes England, MHCLG and the Government, in order to address the conditions around the HIF funding and make sure that we are in a position to satisfy those conditions and move to contract in the next few months. Thirdly, we have an ongoing dialogue, a very detailed dialogue now, with all of the landowners and local interests in the area that we are looking to develop in our first phase. We issued formal letters explaining our plans three or four weeks ago, and there is a very busy process of engagement. Lastly but by no means least, a wider discussion involving the three boroughs that we cover and the communities that they represent. There is a very busy programme of community engagement.
If I was going to summarise it, I would say there is a very important delivery job around land assembly, around infrastructure and early development, which is very much the business of the strengthened senior team; there is an ongoing process of dialogue with community interests and local businesses; and then thirdly there is this big external piece with strategic stakeholders including Government. Those really are the priorities over the next period.

Navin Shah: In two seconds, can you tell me when you expect the new Chief Executive to be in post?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Perhaps I could chip in here because we decided, once we had lured David to come and work for us, and once we had persuaded him - and he indeed had persuaded the GLA that he could spend four days a week [working with OPDC] - we have paused the recruitment of a permanent Chief Executive. David, first of all, is doing an excellent job, has all the contacts we need and knows the background, knows the subject area well, and of course has tremendous expertise in the whole housing agenda. Also, it is quite difficult to go out to the market for a Chief Executive when you still have a number of uncertainties that you need to nail. We need to get our Local Plan adopted. We need to get the HIF money in the bank. We need to get started on the land acquisition process. I have agreed with the GLA that we would suspend the permanent Chief Executive recruitment, and David is with us for the foreseeable future. We have not put a specific timeframe on that, but we talked about at least six months.

Navin Shah: Thank you. I will leave it at that, though it does pose a number of other questions which I will take up outside this meeting. Thank you very much.

Jennette Arnold: We are still on governance and leadership at the OPDC.

Caroline Pidgeon: In terms of your priorities, stakeholder engagement, genuine stakeholder engagement must surely be the key one, but the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum has told us that you have failed to listen and genuinely engage with the community. To David: why have you not adopted all the recommendations from the May 2016 review of OPDC, which included setting up regular forums outside the Board?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I will just deal with half of that and then hand over to David because I am very aware of some of the comments from the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum which I would have to say I feel are misleading. At Board level, when we refreshed the Board, and this was a process we had to‑‑

Caroline Pidgeon: I am not asking about the Board. I specifically asked about setting up regular forums outside the Board.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): No, this is relevant because what I want to do with the Board is ensure that the people we have brought onto the Board have a method for engaging or observing, listening and being part of the consultation within the neighbourhoods, but the neighbourhood forum is a very specific area. I want to ensure that we are reaching all the different groups that represent people’s interests, particular sorts of things‑‑

Caroline Pidgeon: How are you doing that? What have you done to set up fora?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): What we are trying to do - we have not completed it yet because it is work in progress - is I have asked the team, or the team has already been out to the Grand Union Alliance to explore with them whether they are the forum that would bring together all the different groups we wish to liaise with. We have offered to put resource into the Grand Union Alliance, not because we want to dictate its agenda but simply to enable it to function as a coming together of all the different interests within the area. I cannot remember the actual number, but there are at least 15 or 16 different local amenity type groups and I want to hear from all of them.
The Grand Union Alliance has gone away to think about that, but if we could give it some resource that enabled it to organise itself so that we would have a way of interacting, I then have two or three of the Board members I would detail to be that interface and listen to what the representative forum is saying. That is my plan for how to manage the community engagement.
Quite separately, we will of course listen to and talk to the neighbourhood forum and the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum. We have funded it already to hire a consultant to help it prepare its plan. It was difficult engaging with it initially because it had some issues around its own organisation and putting forward people that could engage with us. I would strongly contest any suggestion that we have failed to engage with these people.

Caroline Pidgeon: OK. I want to move on to another question. I have limited time. The wording you use is “manage community engagement”. I think you might want to reflect on the language you use because if I was the community I would not want to feel that I was being “managed”.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I am managing a process to enable the community to engage properly. I am not trying to manage a community. I think that would be ridiculous.

Caroline Pidgeon: You said, “Manage community engagement”. They were your words.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I am managing a process.

Caroline Pidgeon: If I could move on, four years ago the previous Mayor talked about the area being transformed into one of London’s most exciting areas to live, work and play. Your website says you are developing a whole new centre and community for west London. Is this really true? Isn’t the reality that most of the new developments to reach construction to date have been granted by the London Borough of Ealing and not OPDC? I really want you to explain. We have just over a minute. Has OPDC delivered anything that the boroughs could not have alone?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): I think the facts are that there are something like 3,500 homes that have been granted planning consent since OPDC was established in 2015. I think the majority of those planning applications have been determined by OPDC. It is the case, of course, that because OPDC is delegated back to Ealing’s responsibility in its patch, it too has consented quite a number of homes. There has been a fair amount of activity. Oakland South, which is a major new development by Notting Hill Genesis, is going to be complete next year [2020], and that is a very exciting mixed scheme with new commercial space as well as a lot of affordable housing. There is also all the development that is going on on the old Biaggio site, so there is a lot of activity there. There are a lot of planning consents being granted on Scrubs Lane on the eastern end of our site, and we are confident that we can bring many hundreds of new homes forward there.
In terms of the question about what OPDC has been able to do that perhaps the boroughs would not have been able to do alone, the main thing I would point to is the HIF money. Without a development agency sitting at the heart of the project, it would have been extremely difficult to have convinced Government to have accepted or indeed processed the £250million from the HIF. Bearing in mind that the money that has been secured in principle through that route is at the maximum ceiling level that Government is able to allocate through here. I think that is a reflection of the confidence that Homes England and MHCLG have in the arrangements. It would have been very difficult to have secured that in the event that it was without some sort of agency representing those three boroughs.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you.

Shaun Bailey: Good morning, Liz. Good morning, David. Given that a significant area of the OPDC site is strategic industrial locations, how will you be affected by the Mayor’s new London Plan policy of no net loss of strategic industrial locations? How will it affect your delivery?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): If you look at our long-term objectives, we are not just about building homes. Even though the core of the site will be residential, there is still provision within our Local Plan and indeed within our masterplanning for significant commercial space, 65,000 jobs’ worth of commercial space.
We are also looking at how we can intensify the availability of Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) in Park Royal. That was one of the reasons for having Park Royal within the boundary of the Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC), that we can achieve a degree of trade-off. If a big chunk of land goes out of SIL in the core of the Old Oak bit, we can expand the amount of SIL and the amount of SIL floorspace, if not the actual acreage, in Park Royal and around the periphery of Park Royal.
Personally, I have always strongly believed that if you are building new districts and new communities, it should not be about just homes. It has to be about jobs because you want to build a complete community, and that remains our ambition. I am confident that that is the direction we will continue to go in and continue to implement.

Shaun Bailey: I agree with you. It sounds correct; you do not just want to build an oasis of homes and have nowhere to work. Are you confident you can deliver 25,000 homes with no net loss? Of course, we have been promised 25,000new‑‑

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): At this stage I would say I believe we can over the period of the plan. I am absolutely sure we will. Part of the way in which that industrial land has developed and grown up over the years, it is a big, low, flat land use. It is lots of single-storey sheds and stuff. When we look at our plans for how we want to introduce new types of units, how we want to introduce new types of business, how we are working with lots of the neighbours, we are working with Imperial College West to look at how we can encourage spinout businesses, we are working with the Park Royal community to look at how that can expand. I think it would be an admission of failure if I said at this stage I am not confident that I can do it. We have to have the confidence that we will.

Shaun Bailey: How are you going to achieve it? Is it already in your plans to achieve the 25,000 homes? I cannot see how this is going to be done. It is nice to say you can do it and you want to do it, but how are you actually going to do it?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I will pass over to David on the technicalities of this, and this might be something we have to write to you on, but I am not sure whether we have it foot-by-foot or acre-by-acre or job-by-job-by-job. 65,000 jobs sounds pretty impressive to me in terms of what we are going to be creating. Can you help me on this one?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Bear in mind that our area, our patch if you like, has been designated as an Opportunity Area for a considerable period of time. It spans more than one mayoralty. That Opportunity Area Planning Framework has set out at a strategic level how land should be released for residential and mixed-use development, but you are right, we do not want to see any net loss of jobs and employment. In fact, we want to see more, which is why we have this long-term goal of achieving 65,000 jobs.
As Liz has pointed out, it would be wrong to imagine that the development corporation’s patch is just about Old Oak and, if you like, the land that is going to come forward largely for housing development. It is also very much about Park Royal. It is about nurturing those businesses. It is about intensifying use. We are looking very actively at the moment to develop some pilots for looking at vertical stacking of industrial development so that we can make more intense use of what otherwise are quite low-density sites. What we will find is we will see a mix of intensified existing uses, we will see new residential development, and we will see a lot of commercial development, particularly perhaps around a new HS2 station, which, as we know, once it is there is going to be a piece of transport station infrastructure which is going to be busier and larger than Waterloo Station. This has tremendous capability and potential to generate new jobs at a denser level, frankly, than the kind of employment profile that we have on the site at the moment.

Onkar Sahota: Good morning. I want to talk about community engagement. The OPDC has launched a community review group to reflect local interests when deciding planning outcomes in the area. However, there are no details on the london.gov.uk website that show who is on the membership of this, when they meet and what the minutes are. Why is this the case? Why isn’t this all published?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I was not aware that it was not published. There is nothing secret about the community review group. If it has not been published, that must be an administrative oversight.

Onkar Sahota: If you can publish it on the london.gov.uk site - that is the site where the OPDC sits - we can access it easily. I was trying to get hold of who the membership was of the review panel.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): We have certainly published the membership of the review panel because I remember seeing the press release about it, but we can make sure. We will take that away, absolutely.

Onkar Sahota: I want to know who the members are, how often they meet, what they discuss, what they think.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Yes. No problem. There is nothing secret about that at all.

Onkar Sahota: Great. Thank you very much. The other thing is that I understand that the community review discussions have turned into a formal report that feeds into the decision of the OPDC and the OPDC Planning Committee. Will you publish a report on what has been the impact of those discussions by the community review group?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): We have undertaken to have an annual review of the group’s activities, and I am very happy to say that once that annual review is concluded we can publish that review, or at least a summary of that review, because‑‑

Onkar Sahota: When do you think it will be published? When will it be concluded, rather?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): I am not quite sure when it was created, but it was three or four months ago.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): It was only set up about three months ago. If we are committed to this annual report, it will be in about nine months, possibly a bit more, to actually do it.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Probably next spring [2020].

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Yes, next spring [2020].

Onkar Sahota: Just to come back to the Board, are you able to give us more detail as to how the Board was selected, commit to putting up a full list of who is on the Board, with details of their backgrounds and also their community connections?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Yes. Sorry, did you say you would like to know how the Board was selected?

Onkar Sahota: How they were selected, and what their community connections are. I understand that the local community feels that only two members of the Board may have connections with the community, although your materials say that everyone is living in the OPDC area.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Correct.

Onkar Sahota: I really want to establish: are there genuine connections with the community? Is the community being given representation?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): When, as I say, a large number of our original Board members had to step down because of the rules, we ran a competition. We made it clear that we were looking for a broad range of interests. Included in that were people who had local connections, local knowledge, who could feel the area and really understand it both from a business and a residential perspective. We also wanted people who had a broad range of expertise in the whole business of how you do engagement with communities and also how local businesses run. What we ended up with after the selection process was quite a large field to choose from. We had a very rigorous selection process which included myself, DavidBellamy [Mayor’s Chief of Staff], JulesPipe [Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills] and an independent assessor sitting on the Board. We went through the usual longlist and shortlist.
We ended up with a group of people that we felt married up local connections. One of them lives in the area. One of them used to live in the area and is an expert in the whole theory of community engagement. One is a business expert and another one‑‑

Onkar Sahota: That is great. Will you publish this? Will you publish who the members are?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): The members are indeed on the website and their backgrounds are on the website.

Onkar Sahota: Also a little bit of background on what the members represent.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I was under the impression their backgrounds were, but if they are not, I am happy to write to you with a full explanation of that.

Onkar Sahota: Put it on the website, please.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): We will make sure it is on the website if it is not already, yes.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you.
Léonie Cooper AM: I wondered if you could set out how many apprenticeships have been started as a result of OPDC’s work up to date, and how diverse are they in terms of the people who have gone into them?
Apprenticeships have tended to be dominated by traditional groups. It would be nice to think that in this modern day and age of equality that we are managing to get people from a wide range of backgrounds, more women and so on and so forth.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Yes. We have certainly created a number of apprentices, and I am just struggling to find the number, because I asked for that information. I know that we had created a number as a consequence of our planning work. Forgive me. It might take me‑‑
Léonie Cooper AM: Maybe you can send me that number afterwards.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): I can drop you a line with that. What I do not have to hand is the detailed profile of that cohort, but I can certainly retrieve that for you.
Léonie Cooper AM: That would be good. How are you linking that in with the Mayor’s strategic aims in his Skills Strategy for the overall OPDC area? Obviously, you have a number of different areas that you are working on, not just planning and construction. It is quite diverse, isn’t it?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Yes. That is right. We are doing a lot of work with the Park Royal business community on this, so we are looking to establish a new employment and skills hub in Park Royal.
Léonie Cooper AM: I was going to ask you about that. You are saying it is not quite set up still?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): That is right, it is not, but it is well underway. The idea is to do a number of things, not only to support new entrants and apprenticeships but also to support and sustain new businesses in Park Royal and west London, to provide business advice, and generally focus as well very much on linking in with the work that the Mayor is doing around construction skills with his Construction Skills Academy. I have just found the number of apprentices, by the way. I knew I would get there in the end. It is 71 at the moment. We have achieved a minimum of 71 through the Section 106 Agreements that we have completed since 2015.
Léonie Cooper AM: Perhaps you could give us the diversity breakdown of them. I am happy to receive that afterwards.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Yes, I am very happy to look into that.
Léonie Cooper AM: You are still not quite there with the skills hub with having it going live. What work has gone into it so far? You were talking about working with others, which is great. When do you think that is going to be up and running?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): The target date for that at the moment is next spring.
Léonie Cooper AM: Next spring?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Spring 2020, yes. As you may know, this is a partnership between OPDC, the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham. We are working closely as well with the Department for Work and Pensions and West London College. We have a site; it is going to be near the Park Royal centre. As I have already explained, it will cover a range of issues with a particular focus on construction because obviously we hope to be able to influence that as we bring forward our development sites and infrastructure, but also very much linking into the existing business infrastructure within Park Royal and wider west London.
Léonie Cooper AM: Thanks very much.

Gareth Bacon: How would you describe the relations between the OPDC leadership and Cargiant?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Interesting.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Probably less positive than they were a year ago, I think is the honest assessment. That is a fairly well-known fact I think. Certainly a year ago Cargiant, as colleagues may be aware, was actively thinking about bringing its main site forward for development. Its view on that has changed, and that is a matter of public record now.
We are still in touch with Cargiant. It is at the moment reserving its position in terms of formal engagement because it clearly is raising objections to the draft Local Plan which is currently going through its EiP process. There have been communications recently, including invitations to OPDC’s Board to visit. There was a visit that we were involved in through the Cargiant site at its invitation with the planning inspector last month. I think it is fair to say that Cargiant and the OPDC are not entirely aligned at the moment in terms of our planning and regeneration objectives.

Gareth Bacon: The visit that you referred to or the invitation for a visit - and, I understand, a presentation to the OPDC Board - you refused, though, didn’t you?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): No, we did not refuse it. We actually had a date in the diary to‑‑

Gareth Bacon: I have an email in front of me here, sent by David on 25June[2019], which says:
“Let’s discuss tomorrow, but I hope you don’t mind me being direct if I say that for me a Board-only visit would cross a red line, and I strongly advise that GW [that is GeoffWarren, owner of Cargiant] is given no quarter on this, including giving the Board this as an option. It is a fundamental point of principle that OPDC’s exec must be present and GW must not be allowed to drive a wedge between non-execs and execs, a position which I know my team shares equally strongly. Can we also agree that there should be no further written comms with CG [Cargiant] without prior discussion as I am anxious that we don’t inadvertently prejudice our position?”
That sounds like a refusal.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): That is entirely true. I do not know whether you have seen the previous email exchange or you have just been given a selection of it, but I had engaged in an email exchange with GeoffWarren in which I said I was very happy to bring‑‑in fact, I did say I thought the whole Board would be less than helpful if you have a great circus making a visit.

Gareth Bacon: Apparently you offered one Board member.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I said I would be happy to take the Investment Committee to meet him. We had a date in the diary. I managed to round up the key members of the Investment Committee. I spoke to the executive. We agreed, because we are non-executive Board members, that it would be sensible to have members of the executive with us on that visit. I emailed GeoffWarren and said I was proposing to bring David[Lunts] and two other members of the team, and he wrote back and said we would not be welcome on that basis. That was what prompted‑‑

Gareth Bacon: What was the objection to all of the Board going on the site visit?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): First of all, orchestrating it at this stage. It was difficult enough getting the Investment Committee together, given that the general leave season has started. I thought, in the interests of getting it up and running as quickly as possible to take the Investment Committee. I do not think it is necessary for the whole Board to troop around. We manage a system of delegated responsibility. We have an Investment Committee to look at issues of investment. They would report back fully to the Board. That is how I would expect matters to be handled in industry or in Government. You do not have to take everybody. I am perfectly happy to reopen the possibility of a greater number of the Board. In fact, I offered the invitation to a number of members of the Board because I knew one or two of the Investment Committee were having trouble with their diaries. I think we would have had a very good representative sample.

Gareth Bacon: It is the language in this email that is interesting. How would the Board going to Cargiant collectively be “driving a wedge” between anybody?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I do not think it is the issue about the Board collectively. I think it is the issue of the Board not being allowed to take any of their executives with them. I do not believe it is a particularly sensible way of proceeding for somebody like one of our landowners to be dictating who can come on a visit to see the operation, when it is the executive who have to give advice to the non-executives. That does not mean the non-executive Board would necessarily take that advice, but it is extremely helpful for the executives to be present and hear what we are hearing. That is the way I have always worked in Government. When Ministers make visits or when Members of Parliament (MPs) make visits, they generally have one or two executives with them.

Gareth Bacon: To be honest, I am not going to argue that point because I agree with you. I am more puzzled why the Board members themselves should not be allowed to go.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Sorry. I do not follow.

Gareth Bacon: The invitation, as I understand it, was extended individually to every Board member, and there has been action taken to prevent that from happening.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): No, not prevent it from happening. My suggestion to the Board was that we should let the Investment Committee go in the first instance because we could set that up more quickly, and I think the Investment Committee - who are all Board members, by the way - would be able to get to grips with the issues rather more easily than having 12 people trooping around. It is a matter of practical management. That was all. There is nothing sinister saying, “I don’t want the Board to go”. GeoffWarren has now invited the whole of the [London Assembly’s] Budget and Performance Committee as well. I have no doubt that they will make up their mind on who they want to go, but I am sure they will want to have some officials with them if they go.

Gareth Bacon: Speaking as the Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee, you are right, of course. We will take officials. I do not know how many Members are going to go. I am certainly going to go.
One more question on Cargiant. What obligations does the OPDC have in terms of relocating Cargiant, should the plans go forward?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I will let David explain the technicalities of this because there are two ways of looking at acquisition of the Cargiant land.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): The first thing I would want to say is that it is really quite important to us that we try to secure a constructive dialogue with Cargiant. We are certainly not interested in a standoff position. We think that Cargiant’s interests and OPDC’s interests can be aligned. They do not appear to be at the moment, but we are hopeful that in due course we will have a constructive engagement with it.
We are going to be looking to bring forward our early-phase development sites. That will include the acquisition and development of a relatively small amount of Cargiant’s land. We are being very careful in preparing our plans to minimise any impacts on the Cargiant business because we certainly do not want to undermine its viability, and that is why we are still in a process of working through the precise alignment of some of our early-stage infrastructure. We have repeatedly made the suggestion to Cargiant that they sit down and engage with us in that exercise so that we can properly understand how best to take account of their current business needs. That is the first thing to say.
The second thing to say is that we would very much hope that we can move forward to acquire Cargiant land interests through negotiation. Obviously, compulsory purchase is an ultimate backstop position and we may have to use it, but that is not our intention. Our intention would be to seek to settle with Cargiant and indeed any other landowners at Old Oak through private treaty negotiation. The obligations that sit with us in terms of the statutory code and requirements around compulsory purchase, if indeed we get to that point, do involve the option of looking actively at relocation. That is something that we have done a lot of work to assess. We know as well that Cargiant themselves have looked very seriously at the option of relocation in recent years, and we stand ready at every point to seek an active discussion and engagement with the owners of Cargiant to see if we can assist with their relocation plans.
I appreciate at the moment they are saying that they have no wish to relocate, but clearly, if we are successful in bringing forward our draft local plan, successful in drawing down our HIF allocation and successful in terms of delivering our objectives, then it will in time require Cargiant to move. We think we can assist with that process. We think it is perfectly viable to relocate the business. That offer is something that remains on the table with the owners of Cargiant.

Gareth Bacon: Have you identified an alternative site?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): We have identified what we believe to be a potential alternative site.

Gareth Bacon: Have you communicated that to Cargiant?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): As I have said, unfortunately at the moment Cargiant is not willing to formally or actively communicate with us beyond extending an invitation to the Board to have a visit and presentation on the terms that Liz[Peace] has just explained. The position that Cargiant has put to us on the record is that until the Local Plan process EiP is concluded - which it will be, we hope, in the next two to three weeks - it is not willing to formally engage with us. Clearly, once the EiP is over, we will seek to reengage with them. Relocation is certainly one of those items that we are very keen to discuss with them.

Gareth Bacon: My original question was: how would you characterise the relations between the OPDC leadership and Cargiant? It is fair to say they have broken down, then?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): As I say, Cargiant has taken the view that it does not want to have any formal engagement with OPDC at this stage, and it has made it clear to us that‑‑

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Other than the Board. GeoffWarren is very happy to have the Board visit.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Yes, but on his terms. In terms of an active, formal engagement with Cargiant and the executive team at OPDC, until the EiP process is concluded, the owners of Cargiant have said that they do not wish to have an active engagement with us. They have given the reason for that as being that they do not want to compromise their objections or their position as objectors to the draft Local Plan.

Fiona Twycross: I would like to ask, what added value is the OPDC providing to London and particularly the local economies?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Initially, our value is in planning for a future new district. It would be difficult to actually put a number on what we have currently contributed, other than that we have lifted a number of functions, particularly the planning function, from the three boroughs, which we are doing on the boroughs’ behalf, except with the redelegation back to Ealing of the particular area around Acton. What we have done is prepared a Local Plan, prepared a masterplan, which gives us a blueprint for creating a future district that is going to bring home some jobs. That is when we will be delivering the value to London.

Fiona Twycross: How will you be supporting employment opportunities for local people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds that we would particularly like to see benefit from this project?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): David[Lunts] has talked a little bit about our apprentice programme already. We will certainly be following the practice of the Olympic Delivery Authority when we get to the stage of doing major works on the site of expecting developers who employ contractors to create local job opportunities, to create apprenticeships. We are supporting the businesses in Park Royal in every way we conceivably can, and they have a very, very strong local employment ethos. Obviously, they prefer to employ local people. It is easier to get local people into Park Royal. I think the longer-term job creation is bound to help the local jobs market. Where we have the power to intervene to make sure people do take locals, then we will do so. We do not have that power in a lot of places but we can simply encourage.

Fiona Twycross: What types of jobs are you expecting to be in the regenerated OPDC, and how will you ensure that local residents have the necessary skills to apply for them? This is about more than apprenticeships, really.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Yes. First of all, we will have a construction phase, so there will be construction jobs. As David has already said, very much leveraging off the Mayor’s whole approach to construction skills and his skills academy and looking at how we can use that, how we can work with the local colleges, and indeed we are already doing that, to make sure people are skilled to take advantage of that. That is the construction phase.
In the longer term, we cannot be absolutely clear about the types of businesses that we are going to attract to OPDC, and I would hope that there would be a big cross-section. I mentioned earlier that we are almost contiguous with Imperial West and the whole healthcare, public health spinoff from Imperial, so I would hope there would be high-quality, research-type, spinoff product development jobs there. There is a whole artistic quarter developing in Harlesden, north of Willesden Junction. I hope that will be able to encourage people from there to spill over into OPDC. I would hope that we would be able to build on the extraordinary range of activities that currently happen in Park Royal. That has everything from lower-skilled assembly-type jobs right through to highly-skilled jobs. There is a stained glass workshop there. The people who work in that are clearly hugely skilled.
Then, around the actual station, when HS2 is completed and we can see the development of that space, we are going to have a much more traditional office where I would hope that we would be able to attract head offices of international corporations because it will be a fabulously connected spot. I think we are going to have a really good opportunity to get a cross-section of different employment.

David Kurten: I would like to ask you a couple more questions about Cargiant, if I may. You mentioned that you want to purchase a small amount of its land. How much is that as a percentage figure?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): As a percentage of what?

David Kurten: As a percentage of its total land for the phase 1A development.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I will let David[Lunts] get into the detail, but yes, there are two stages to this. Just for ease of reference, let’s call it 1A and 1B. 1A, which we have also called the Northern Arc and Union Road - it seems to have had umpteen different names - is the one where we will require some relatively small parts of Cargiant’s site, and David can explain those.
1B is the bulk of the Cargiant site, which, when it ultimately comes forward, clearly, if we are going to develop that, Cargiant will not be able to stay. That is what we have to look at some sort of future agreement about. One or other of us will have to develop it. Cargiant’s business will have to go somewhere else.
Let us just deal with 1A first, the little packets of land where we are trying to absolutely minimise the amount we need to take. We have spent months looking at this about how we can design our plans so that we really do not take a significant amount of that.

David Kurten: What percentage for 1A?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Do you know what percentage it is?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): We have issued what we call a dotted red line plan, which is the plan that we are using to go out and spend time consulting in detail with occupiers and landowners. It is a dotted line because we are still refining our final plans that will inform how much land we need to take. The dotted line obviously contains a wider area than we think is likely to be necessary once we conclude our plans, probably in a few months’ time.
Within our phase 1A plans, in other words our early delivery phase, which is associated directly with our HIF investment, we are potentially going to be looking to acquire around 25% of Cargiant’s land ownership. However - I can see the expressions - very little of that is actually operational land for Cargiant’s main business. A large amount of that land that we are looking to acquire for phase 1A development is long leasehold interest that Cargiant has in non-related functions.

David Kurten: You say that. What percentage of that is operational land?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): We think certainly well under 10%, probably closer to 5%.

David Kurten: 10% of the whole of Cargiant’s land?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Yes.

David Kurten: You are saying 10%. You want to acquire 25% of Cargiant’s land for phase 1A, of which 15% is non-operational and 10% is operational. Is that your answer?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): No, no. I do not want to be held very specifically to numbers because, as I say, our plans are evolving. What I am saying is that within our published dotted red line it is about 25%, but the vast majority of that is non-operational. It is land that Cargiant owns as investments. It has other businesses that are not connected directly with the Cargiant operation. If you look at the Cargiant operation, which is about retail space, it is about operational factory-style units where they process vehicles and so forth. We are not looking to take that in our phase 1A plans. It is primarily land that Cargiant owns as investment but is non-operational. Some of it is road space which they use for what they call a test track to test vehicles, and we are confident that there are alternatives locally that can be used for testing vehicles. It is things like car parks‑‑

David Kurten: You are confident. Have you identified alternative localities for the test track, then?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Yes, we certainly have.

David Kurten: Can you say what they are?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): No, not here and now without site plans and so forth. We have very carefully looked at how we can avoid impacting the operational business of Cargiant, which is why, as I say, the amount of operational land that we may be looking to acquire for early-phase development is going to be very marginal indeed. We are quite confident that we can evidence that this will not impact in any detrimental way to its business.

David Kurten: How many homes do you plan to build on that 25% of Cargiant’s land that you want to purchase for phase 1A? What do you propose to do with that land?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Our first-phase development we think will deliver around about 3,000 homes.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): That is not just Cargiant land, though.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): No, no. That is the whole of phase 1A.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): That is phase 1A.

David Kurten: My question was, how many homes are you planning to build on the 25% of Cargiant’s land that you want to purchase? What precisely do you plan to do with just the land that you want to purchase from Cargiant for phase 1A? How many homes, and what else are you going to do with it?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): I am not going to give a figure to that at the moment because, as I say, our plan is still being worked through. The reason that we are consulting‑‑

David Kurten: You are not sure.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): -- within this dotted red line boundary is to understand as precisely as we can what the needs of the various landowners and businesses are, and to use that process to finally align or secure an alignment for the infrastructure we need and the alignment for the precise development plots. We are a considerable way away from lodging a planning application.

David Kurten: I do not have an awful lot of time so I just want to get an answer from you. You mentioned 3,000 homes for the whole of phase 1A. How much of phase 1A in terms of land is that 25% you want to purchase from Cargiant? Is the 25% of Cargiant’s land just a small part of phase 1A or is it a large part of phase 1A?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Phase 1A is a combination of development plots which will be largely residential development - not exclusively but largely residential development - utilities infrastructure and roads. Hard infrastructure. The land that we need to acquire that currently is engaged for the long leasehold interest of Cargiant is land that will either be developed for housing or other things, or it will be land that is required because we need to construct the new east-west access road through it.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): We have not, for example, decided exactly where an energy centre would go. An energy centre might end up on that piece of Cargiant land or a piece of other land. There is Network Rail land. There is other land‑‑

David Kurten: You are not certain yet about what is going to be on that land.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Especially since we are still or would like to be engaged in negotiation with Cargiant about how we can accommodate its particular needs.

David Kurten: Let me ask you another question, Chair. I understand that in a meeting of the Assembly [Budget and Performance Committee] here on 11June[2019] you said that, provided we can crack on and work around the Cargiant land ownership, you could start phase 1A. Is that correct?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Yes.

David Kurten: It is? OK. You could start phase 1A without this purchase of Cargiant’s land? Is that what you meant by that?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): No, sorry. What I meant by that comment was that, provided we can come to a sensible accommodation about the small parts of land that we need, which we genuinely do not believe would impact on Cargiant business, we can get cracking and Cargiant can carry on running its business. That is the ideal position that I would like to get to.

David Kurten: Did you mean by that you want to purchase that 25%?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): We do need some small parts of Cargiant’s land, yes.

David Kurten: 25% of Cargiant’s land?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): 25% of its overall landholding, yes, but not 25% of its car business land.

David Kurten: OK, but that is 10% of the land you want approximately would be‑‑

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Up to 10%, but we have not confirmed that yet because we cannot engage.

David Kurten: You are coming back to confirm what David[Lunts] said there earlier. Have you already started a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) process for that land? Have you already initiated the CPO process?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): We have started a process. I am not sufficient of a CPO expert to know what counts as a CPO process. What we have done is published our red line.

David Kurten: David, are you a sufficient expert in CPOs to answer the question?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): We have not issued a resolution to move to compulsory purchase, but what we have done is a detailed land referencing exercise and we have issued what are called section 5A notices, which are the notices that have gone to all of the interests within what I have referred to as the dotted red line boundary. That is an important part of a process that any agency or organisation with compulsory purchase powers needs to do, because unless we can evidence the fact that we have spoken in detail to all of the local interests that are within our plan area about their business needs, their concerns and their requirements, unless we can evidence that we have been through that process‑‑

David Kurten: That is part of the process. You have started it.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): -- then it is going to be quite difficult to move into the more formal process which will start at some point in the next period. We have started the essential preliminary works which could ultimately need to compulsory purchase, is the answer.

David Kurten: Thank you for your answers.

Tom Copley: Good morning. Moving on to the issue of placemaking, how will you ensure that any development’s proposals deliver the highest standards of placemaking, urban design and architecture? I do not know which of you wants to have a go at this one.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I will start and David will chip in. You and I have discussed this before. In fact, it has come up on a number of occasions. Personally, I would not have taken on this job if I had not been interested in creating something that people would look at as an exemplar of placemaking. I can think of places in London that I do not consider to have done that. I have lived and worked in London for many years.
We have a very strong focus on how we have started to master-plan the site and we have done a big master-planning exercise over the last two years. We have significant amounts of green space. Yes, we are looking at high-density development. It is no higher than other acceptable high-density developments in London. The importance of high density is that it is well designed and it is well planned. It is certainly not nearly as dense as, for example, the Nine Elms Battersea area. There is a big focus on environmental quality, a big focus on the right sort of transport infrastructure to allow people to not have cars, a big focus on substantial amounts of green space.
I believe we are doing everything we conceivably can from a planning perspective, a plan-making perspective, not a planning authority perspective - I am making that distinction - to ensure that we have the highest placemaking objectives in what we are doing. We have our own head of design. We have a design review panel. We also have a design review group, which is different, and so two separate elements of that. I have sat in on meetings with our head of design discussing the HS2 station. I know how rigorously they take anybody who is coming forward with a development to task over what they are doing for creating the environment.

Tom Copley: I do not have a huge amount of time.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Sorry.

Tom Copley: No, it is fine. You mentioned Nine Elms Battersea, which is grim. Places like Lewisham Gateway are grim. One of the problems in these areas is that it is developer-led regeneration. What I am keen on is that this is very much led by you, led by the OPDC.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I agree.

Tom Copley: Going on to the point you mentioned of density and height, PolicySP2 on good growth and SP6 on places and destinations both deal with placemaking. What effect do you think those policies are going to have on the types of high-density developments that will be built? Is ‘high-density’ going to mean towers? I know that towers are not particularly great for people to live in. Are you going to try to achieve high density in a low and medium-rise way?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I will let David talk about specific heights. There will be some towers, but we do not want to cover the OPDC with towers. We very much see the higher buildings going in in certain locations where they will be most appropriate: around the station, on the edges of the site. However, as I said before, high-density does not have to be bad placemaking. Do you want to add to that?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): It is an interesting point and I very much agree with Tom. One of the things that interests me and excites me about the OPDC - and certainly will continue to do so as long as I am involved in it - is exactly your point: this needs to be seen as quite public-sector led. This is going to involve lots of partnerships with business, with developers and with the development community, but the opportunity to lead from the front with a lot of public investment and a lot of public land ownership means that we get to set the terms for, if you like, ‘clienting’ that responsibility to have excellence in design.
Also, on the density point, I understand very well all the controversies around densities, building heights and all the rest of it. That is an exciting challenge as well because, as we know, London is going to see more dense development going forward. That is very much what the new London Plan is all about. It is an inevitability.
There are some really very good examples of high-density new development in London and there are some examples that probably you and I might agree do not quite meet that mark. I am very clear and I know Liz is very clear and I promise you the Board is extremely clear on this point that we are not going to tolerate second or third best. This has to be setting a new benchmark. That is really the challenge and the goal here: setting a new benchmark for excellent design in high-density environments.

Tom Copley: I am pleased to hear that. I will have to finish up there because of time, but I will say that even with the London Legacy Development Corporation, though, which was supposedly public sector-led, there are still some absolutely grim buildings going up around there. I really hope that the OPDC is going to be different. Thank you.

Housing Infrastructure Fund

Sian Berry: How has the Housing Infrastructure Fund process helped progress the OPDC plans?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): This has been hugely important. When I started this role, I was very concerned that we had very little subsidy - let us use the word ‘subsidy’ as a convenient way of saying public sector input into this - other than the fact that the Mayor was financing our running costs. The one bit of potential public sector subsidy we had was the Memorandum of Understanding that allowed us access to the Network Rail land at existing use value. We still need money to buy it at existing use value. It was extremely fortunate that the HIF came along. The team and indeed the GLA reacted very quickly to leap in and make a bid. Yes, the HIF bid has been crucial to unlocking this and it has allowed us to develop the plan for phase 1A, to identify the infrastructure we need to unlock that and hopefully to get the acceptance of the bid, which we now need to nail. Once we have done that, that will allow us to unlock what I call phase 1B, the bigger part of the site, earlier. Yes, it is probably quite difficult to see where we would be without the HIF money.

Sian Berry: Thank you. You have been quite clear that you do not have the money in the bank yet.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): We do not have it yet, no.

Sian Berry: Last time we spoke about this was at the Budget [and Performance] Committee. You said that the conditions on the HIF were set after the Government announcement of funding and that the Government announcement followed six months of you, as you said, badgering the MHCLG to put an announcement out.
Were the conditions set only after the announcement? Is that part of any problem that is‑‑

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Exactly how these were put together within the MHCLG and Homes England you would have to ask them. Quite a lot of them are standard conditions and so we could have foreseen - and did foresee - quite a lot of them, but then there are specific conditions related to our site.
I must admit, as I said earlier in my opening remarks, there are times when I wake up at night worrying about parts of this programme. When I met with the Budget and Performance Committee, that was probably one of my more depressed days, thinking, “My goodness, when are we going to get through this?” I feel a lot better today. We have had some very constructive engagements with Homes England. David[Lunts] has being doing his utmost to chivvy along the whole process. While I could not say with certainty that we will be able to nail everything by a certain date, I do feel we are on a rather more positive trajectory than we were when I last spoke to you.

Sian Berry: Just to check, you have to meet every single one of the conditions - and there are quite a few of them - to get the money?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Do we have to meet every single one?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): They have set the conditions out very clearly‑‑

Sian Berry: It is a yes/no question. Is it all of them or just the majority?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): It is a dialogue. That is the right thing to say.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Yes. These things are always subject to negotiation.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): There is always a question about how you meet some of the conditions because they are not all yes/no. Some of them have some room for discussion and negotiation.

Sian Berry: Are any of them out of your control? For example, are any of them related to investment decisions by the Government or Transport for London (TfL) or anything like that?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Some of them are not entirely within our control, but we have a lot of influence over all the conditions that the Government has set.

Sian Berry: Can you publish the conditions that you have negotiated? That would be in terms of our scrutiny and in terms of seeing if progress is happening. Are they able to be published now that they are agreed?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): No, because the MHCLG has been very clear with us that they do not wish them to be published and so, if they were to be published, we would need their agreement.

Sian Berry: We will need to go back to them on this because all we can tell is what we can surmise. We know that, for example, one of the conditions is that the GLA underwrites it. Another one is that you get your Local Plan through. We know those and we are guessing at those. However, in terms of other things that might cause a wrinkle or a problem, we are in the dark. We keep hearing that you are confident or that you feel differently on different days. That is not very helpful to us in terms of tracking how you are doing.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I appreciate it is not very helpful, but I feel my hands are slightly tied on this one. The people who are giving us the money have said, “These are commercially sensitive documents and we would prefer them not to be published”. That is where we stand.
Sian Berry AM: Meanwhile, the GLA is underwriting the £250million in case any of these conditions, which we do not know about, might not come off.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): That is absolutely true because - and this is a matter that is in the public domain - one of the terms of the HIF, regardless of whether it is Old Oak or any of the other HIF bids, is that the agency that submits the bid is ultimately accountable for the money that is allocated. Therefore, the GLA is ultimately accountable for all the forward funding HIF bids that have been submitted, including Old Oak.

Sian Berry: That is different to underwriting it so that you can get on and spend, is it not?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Ultimately, the GLA takes responsibility and accountability for delivering according to the HIF milestones. Just like any other upper-tier authority that has submitted bids, if those bids are allocated, that upper-tier authority - in this case the GLA - is responsible to the Government for ensuring that that money is delivered in accordance with the contract conditions. That is a matter of public record.

Sian Berry: OK, but in terms of you getting on and planning things, you can do that now? You can start to plan to spend the HIF money or is this why you are waiting for a Mayoral decision? This is all or nothing in terms of you getting on with your work?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): The point that I made earlier was that I had had the discussion with the Mayor to say, “We will need to do certain things in advance of getting the HIF money in the bank. Will you support us during that period?” That is what is now going to be the subject of a mayoral direction, which we expect to see very shortly. You will see that. That will be in the public domain. That will happen within the next‑‑
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Short period.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): ‑‑couple of weeks, I hope.

Sian Berry: I would have thought that this is allowing you to spend money we might‑‑

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): That is not £250million. The Mayor is not offering me a cheque for £250million to tide us over.

Sian Berry: It is allowing you to spend money that we may not get back. You would expect the conditions to be in that decision.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): In principle, in theory, you are right. It is money that we might not get back. The alternative is we down tools and do not do anything and then that puts us in a very weak position to cement the HIF bid. It is a balanced judgement. We have had an interesting and feisty discussion with the Mayor’s budget people about this and we have whittled down what we think we need to the absolute minimum, which we consider to be at the lowest possible risk. It will fund a number of things, which we think have to happen anyway in this area.

Sian Berry: OK. I want to ask about one of the specific bits of infrastructure and what you do with it: the street that is going to be built. That is part of the HIF bid, is it not?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): The road.

Sian Berry: A road? If we can call it a street, I would prefer that, actually.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Is it a road or a street? I do not know. There may be a subtlety in that. Anyway, it is a means of communication.

Sian Berry: It is a link across the railway line.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Yes, a key road.

Sian Berry: We, as Greens, would hope that this road or this street would be used principally for public transport, walking and cycling. We would hope that these activities on the street would be brought forward as early as possible, potentially at the construction stage because construction workers need to walk, cycle and use buses to get to work. At the moment, there is not even a bus along Hythe Road, for example. The closest you can get is Scrubs Lane and there is only one bus on there.
Is there work that you are doing to bring forward, now that you have your infrastructure plans, public transport onto that infrastructure to prevent it being a car-dependent development from the start, including during construction?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I will say straight away that I absolutely agree with the principle of what you said and that is a principle that underpins all our development. The other bit of traffic on whatever this road is called is likely to be Cargiant vehicles doing test drives, but that may be an issue that we can talk about later. David, do you want to say something about our approach to transport?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Yes. The commitment in the draft Local Plan is absolutely to have as little reliance as possible on the car. It is going to be an incredibly well-connected place because we have Willesden Junction and we are going to have the new HS2 station. In time, we hope we might even get stations at Old Oak and Hythe Road. This is going to be a plan that has very low - 0.2 - carparking spaces and so really at the bottom end. It is going to be very clear that a lot of development‑‑

Sian Berry: Sorry, I do not have much time and so I am going to interrupt you. I am trying to specifically ask about phase 1A and things you could start planning for now, public transport bus routes through that area for the builders and then to serve the earliest residents. Local Plans have a tendency to put in all the stuff that is car dependent and then add the buses later at the last stage. That does lead to car dependency. While you have so much construction work going on, it would be great if you would start looking at public transport infrastructure for phase 1A today.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): We both agree with you.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Absolutely.

Sian Berry: Thank you.

Tom Copley: I note your plan to use land value uplift to fund infrastructure by selling land at a profit. What are the short, medium, and long-term risks around the proposals to resell land that is ready for development and how will you mitigate those?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): If we look specifically at phase 1A, there are a number of ways that we could implement. We can buy the land we are entitled to buy off Network Rail. We can acquire other land from other landowners.
We have not completely firmed up on the precise way we might do that because there might be other ways to cut the cake. There might be ways to do joint ventures with Network Rail, for example, that would then save us having to shell out capital upfront to buy land. Then we would simply have to have some sort of overage agreement in the future.
All this, of course, is going to be very dependent on how the whole housing land and other land markets go in London. You can almost take a wet finger in the air. You pick your valuers and ask them what they think is going to happen to land values. The views we have had from a lot of our advisers is that while there may be a number of blips over the immediate future, generally in the longer term they are confident that we are going to see rising land values in this area. That is what we would hope to benefit from. It is important that whatever sort of deals we do with anybody, we make sure we get our share of the value uplift. You and I have spoken about this many times before. I am a strong believer in making sure that we do get that.

Tom Copley: Yes. Will you have taken everything through a planning application? Will there be an outline permission and then will you send the land on to a developer to build out?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I do not know yet. We have not reached that stage. We have done some relatively soft market engagement. We have been talking to people who might be potential developers. They might be partners. They might be delivery partners. There are lots of different ways of cutting this. I assure you that the team and I and the Investment Committee - and we have some good canny property people on our Investment Committee - will make sure that we derive as much value as we feasibly can from the sites under our control.

Tom Copley: Can you do it in a way that allows the public sector to retain a stake or even keep it public, like TfL is doing with‑‑

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Yes, exactly. That is one option. I am a great believer in the public sector, if they have any land, keeping a handle on it or on some of it or rather, if you sell a certain share, you do a joint venture, but you have skin in the game so that when there is substantial uplift in the future you get a proportion of it. Selling off everything on day one is not necessarily a good idea.

Tom Copley: I entirely concur with that, yes. David, do you have anything to add to that?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): If the public sector tries to go it alone, so to speak, and if everything goes well, then you get all the uplift and that is terrific. However, of course, if you get your sums wrong you are in trouble, either because the values are not there or because the cash flow is not there and the market will not buy sites at the right time at the right price. If you are using that to fund infrastructure, you cannot suddenly stop building your road. There are some challenges around that model.
Equally, if you expect the private sector to do everything, they are going to have to price in the risk and the cost of capital and all those things and you tend to lose control. I do wonder whether there is a sweet spot here where, in return for our money and our investment, it may be that we can partner with an agency or a series of organisations to share risk and reward.
However, I am very clear and I agree with you that if the public sector is going to step into this very challenging project at the beginning with at least £250million of money, then we need to have a share of whatever the uplift is going forward. We will need that, too, because ultimately this is going to need more than £250million of public money to unlock the entirety of the site.
My guess is that there is some sweet spot where we will probably be looking for partners to share risk and reward, but, as Liz says, we are not quite at the stage of knowing exactly when that moment will happen.

Tom Copley: Finally, will the fact that you are able to fund some of the infrastructure around the site give you a better negotiating position when agreeing levels of affordable housing with developers?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): The answer is yes because you will know that whenever there is a negotiation with a developer - I certainly know because I have seen it from the developer’s side - they will say, “Here is our viability and we have this amount of headroom. We can either fund your infrastructure or we can fund your affordable housing. Which would you like it to be? There is not enough money in the pot for everything”. Of course you can press the developers because you never believe the first story they tell you‑‑

Tom Copley: Absolutely.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): ‑‑but ultimately that is indeed true. There is never enough money in the pot for absolutely everything and so there is always going to be a trade-off. If we put £250million into infrastructure, the developer is not having to pay that and that means they have more headroom on the affordable housing front.
By the way, I should add that we are an MDC. We want and we have to follow the Mayor’s policy on affordable housing.

Tom Copley: Thank you very much.

Navin Shah: Liz, you mentioned earlier on the unfortunate uncertainty about HS2. I want to ask a question about the very future of HS2. As we all know, the Chair of HS2 is carrying out a project review and this is in the context of a comment from the frontrunner to be the Prime Minister, BorisJohnson [MP], and I quote:
“There are projects we should have on transport in the north of the country that ought to take precedence over HS2.”
Do you think that if HS2 were to be scrapped, it would still be viable in terms of developing the planned major development and regeneration that we have for the OPDC area?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): This is very much my personal view and I do not know what the Mayor’s position would be on this. If we did not have HS2, it would put a whole different complexion on what we do at Old Oak, especially in the next ten to 20 years. In my personal view, it would probably set back the regeneration of that area of London by about 20 years, I would guess. That is a very wet finger in the air.
There are a couple of other things to say on that and, again, this is the view of LizPeace, not necessarily the view of the Mayor. There is an issue around a Crossrail station at Old Oak. At the moment, the station development where the HS2 station will be will also incorporate a Crossrail station. It will also incorporate four platforms for the Great Western Line to stop. Something the GLA might want to look at is whether you would still build a Crossrail station even if HS2 was not coming in. I do not know. I do not know the answer to that, but that is one way in which you could at least achieve an improved transport link.
Let us assume that did not happen. If you look at the north of the Old Oak site, we have another fantastic transport interchange that has not been developed up to its full potential and that is Willesden Junction. You might want to shift the whole focus of what you are trying to do to Willesden Junction, but again that would be a GLA/TfL decision.
Whether you would need an MDC to do either of those things becomes a matter for debate. It would certainly put our overall rationale for being into a large degree of doubt.

Navin Shah: I posed this question to the Mayor at the last Mayor’s Question Time and he clearly stated in the response that he would be recommending to the new Prime Minister to continue with HS2. However, given the position that BorisJohnson [MP] has taken on that and the whole host of reviews being undertaken, there are deep concerns about HS2. Hopefully, we will know by the end of the year [2019]. LizTruss MP also said that a HS2 decision will be due at the end of this calendar year [2019].
Given that there are serious concerns about HS2 being scrapped, should you and the Mayor and the GLA be looking at planB to see whether the current planned major delivery of 25,000 homes and 65,000 jobs is going to be viable? Is this something you are already thinking about and talking about? Should you be waiting for another year when you know that the whole thing is at major risk?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): We are certainly thinking about it. It is never far from our thoughts. I absolutely believe that HS2 is a project that needs to go ahead, but I am not the Prime Minister. It is perhaps worth remembering, of course, that one of the candidates for the prime ministerial position was indeed the Mayor of London at the time at which it was agreed to set up OPDC to benefit from the HS2 station. Look, I do not know where this is going and so I cannot tell you.

Navin Shah: I appreciate that. The point is‑‑

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I have outlined to you what we would need to look at if indeed HS2 does not go ahead. We can start planning for those eventualities now, but it is better to see what we can do to at least capitalise on the money that we have been offered and work out how we can get started on the planning for that. I have already said that we are going to minimise our expenditure and try to look at those things we think will not be wasted in the long term; for example, cracking ahead with energy supply. There is always going to be a need for some additional energy supply in this area and so that is not going to be money wasted. Even if sites are acquired - and we do not have a specific plan on that - we can do something with those sites whatever happens. However, we would have to reconsider the whole position of the OPDC.

Navin Shah: The big question for all of us is that, if HS2 goes with Crossrail likely to go as well, what happens then? Is the current scale of delivery and regeneration viable? Is it going to be viable at all? I will leave it with that comment.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): My personal view - and I have not discussed this with the Mayor but I would be surprised if he or his advisers did not agree with me - would be that the scale of the ambitious plans we have are not viable without HS2 and Crossrail, certainly not for another couple of decades.

Navin Shah: Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.
Léonie Cooper AM: I wanted to ask you about green infrastructure. As Assembly Members we can do individual reports and I did one on biodiversity in new housing developments. It is not just a housing development at the OPDC but it is a major development. The concept of threading green infrastructure through it and maintaining biodiversity is one that is now becoming enshrined in the forthcoming new London Plan.
I wondered if you could set out what you consider to be the main challenges in maintaining biodiversity and getting that green infrastructure in.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): First of all, there is a very clear commitment in the draft Local Plan to at least 30% green space within the development overall. That is something we are taking very seriously. There is a strong commitment in the draft Local Plan to a green infrastructure, including things like sustainable urban drainage (SUDS). We are looking very actively at how we can incorporate elements of biodiversity and amenity into the service infrastructure of the site.
One of the most enticing and exciting things about Old Oak is the fact that it has this green waterway running through the middle of it with the canal, which is only partly used at the moment. For those of you who have been down there, it is not the most exciting prospect to walk down the towpath.
That is one of the reasons why, amidst all this work that is going on around HIF and strategic infrastructure and planning, some of the most exciting work we are doing is around some of the early activation projects. We are looking at things like improving access to the Scrubs itself because of course we have this terrific green space park on our southern boundary. We are looking at early activation projects to open up more of the canal space and celebrate some of the biodiversity there and get a lot more people using the waterways as well.
Léonie Cooper AM: In practical terms, what do you think you can do to maximise the benefit of the Grand Union Canal and of the Metropolitan Open Land at Wormwood Scrubs?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Partly, it is about making sure that all our plans celebrate that space and incorporate it as best they can. Secondly, it is about making as many early improvements as we can to the maintenance and access to those spaces. It is also about doing quite a lot of promotion. We are investing with the local community organisations in terms of events that can get people canoeing on the canal and get people doing voluntary clean-ups of the canal towpath and doing events in the Scrubs itself. It is a range of things, partly strategic, partly operational and partly promotional.
Léonie Cooper AM: As I said, it is not just housing, but you have the industrial areas and you have the SIL how will you use the new Urban Greening Factor and the promotion of net biodiversity gain in those areas as well? You have talked about maintaining 30% green overall and using SUDS as part of that process and the open space in the canal, but in the strategic industrial areas it would be nice to think that it is going to be there as well.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Yes. That is a good point. We are currently looking to make a £10million submission to the Liveable Neighbourhoods Fund with TfL specifically to address some of those challenges in Park Royal in the industrial areas you are talking about. For instance, at the moment there is a big reliance on people driving to work. The state of the public realm is not very good. We want to see a lot more development of small green spaces in Park Royal. We want to see more emphasis on cycling and public transport. We want to see a comprehensive programme of traffic reduction within Park Royal, not to undermine the commercial viability of those places but to get people out and celebrating some of the public space that badly needs improvement. Assuming we are successful in that Liveable Neighbourhoods Fund project, I would hope that this time next year [2020] if we come back we will be able to talk you through some of the more detailed plans.
Léonie Cooper AM: Do you think you might be talking to some of the developers about green walls being incorporated into the strategic industrial developments and perhaps green or even brown roofs? I am pleased to hear that there will be good cycling connections because that is important. Not everybody should be coming by car.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Definitely, brown roofs, green roofs, green walls, absolutely.
Léonie Cooper AM: We will not be seeing you allowing the developers to max out on biodiversity offset contributions somewhere else?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Hopefully not, no.
Léonie Cooper AM: Hopefully not. That is very good. You were talking about the access for local people. Do you think there will be the possibility of improving some of the bridges? You have already pointed out that the towpaths are pretty unwelcoming at the moment, but we could have nicer bridges. It is a shame in many parts of London that we have these bridges and you cannot see, quite often, that you are travelling over little rivers or canals. Is that something you are thinking of improving? I can see nodding.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I am smiling because I am always staggered by how many bridges and things we are going to have to be creating. One of the earliest ones that we would like to get cracking on is a bridge over the Grand Union Canal to link with what we hope will be the Oaklands North development into the north of the site. This will have to be a well-designed bridge. The Canals and Rivers Trust has made it clear and we agree with them. This is not just about sticking a utilitarian bridge over the canal. It will be a well-designed bridge and, yes, we will be taking account of everything you say.
I also agree with you about what you do to improve the canal because the canal there is a terrific asset. It is twice the width of the Grand Union Canal I knew from being brought up in Birmingham. That is a very narrow canal. We have a fabulous wide one and the towpaths are terrific, but they do not feel very safe at the moment.
Léonie Cooper AM: I look forward to that element of the infrastructure being improved as well.

Florence Eshalomi: Good morning. Just speaking on infrastructure, you touched on it when you answered my colleague AssemblyMemberShah in terms of HS2. Your Strategic Plan 2016-19 says that delays to Crossrail construction will affect the financial viability of the masterplan. Can you elaborate on whether that has had an effect on the masterplan now? We do know that Crossrail is delayed.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Has the delay in Crossrail had an impact on the masterplan?

Florence Eshalomi: Yes, on your masterplan and viability.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): No, because the current programme for the HS2 station opening is 2026. I would imagine that the Elizabeth line will definitely be running by 2026.

Florence Eshalomi: I am talking about Crossrail. Your Strategic Plan states:
“If HS2 or Crossrail construction programmes are delayed or halted, this would materially impact on the transfer of land and financial deliverability of the masterplan.”
I want to know what mitigation you are putting in place for that.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): The point there is that the Crossrail station is dependent on HS2 and so the key thing there is HS2. Were HS2 to be delayed, we would have to rerun quite a few of our numbers because HS2 and how quickly it gets in there is going to impact on the potential land value and on how soon the work sites are freed up for development. Yes, if HS2 is delayed, we would have to rerun some of those assumptions.

Florence Eshalomi: You also touched on the fact that Willesden Junction could be an Overground station that could be developed. Another station that was not mentioned is Hythe Road. At our Budget and Performance Committee meeting we heard that the funding for the Overground station at Hythe Road is not on the agenda. What implications would this have for you?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): There are two Overground stations and I may have been guilty of perhaps presenting this in slightly the wrong way. I tend to call a spade a spade and it was pointed out to me that the situation is slightly more subtle on that with regard to the funding.
The position is that neither station currently is budgeted for in the TfL’s plans. According to TfL modelling, there is no transport need for a Hythe Road station. From our perspective, we would like a station at Hythe Road because we think it would create a better regeneration with better access to public transport. We would have to make a decision as we move into our phase 1B about whether we would expect a potential developer to fund Hythe Road station or whether there are other sources of funding for Hythe Road station. That is why it is currently an aspiration, it would be fair to say. It is not a funded programme.
On the Old Oak station, which is down to the west, TfL’s modelling shows that there is a transport justification for that station but there is nothing in the budget for it. Again, that would be an aspiration at some point in the future. One would always like lots of stations but we cannot have everything.

Florence Eshalomi: I totally agree and it is about priorities and demand and budget. On Hythe Road, you did state that TfL said that they have done the modelling and do not believe there is any demand. Have they provided you with that modelling? They had not publicly stated that they are not proceeding because of lack of demand. Do you have that information?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): I hope I have not put my foot in it yet again. I remember sitting in a meeting some time ago with their modellers and their transport planners. They said they had looked at it and there was no transport case for it. I thought that was in the public domain. I may be wrong.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): It is now.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): It is now, yes.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): It is worth emphasising as well that regardless of Old Oak station or Hythe Road station - neither of which are funded at the moment and let us be clear about that - assuming that we get a HS2/Crossrail station and we have Willesden Junction, this is going to be an incredibly well-connected place, disregarding those two stations that currently do not have a funding route. It is probably going to be the case that nobody in our new Old Oak regeneration area is going to be more than, say, a ten‑minute walk away from two amazingly well-connected stations. This does not critically undermine our ambitions in terms of overall development or density.

Florence Eshalomi: Thank you. I will leave it there, Chair.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you very much. OK, AssemblyMemberShah, do you have a question?

Navin Shah: Yes, Chair. I would like to go back to Liz and her comment about David’s[Lunts] appointment on a four-days-a-week basis. How long will this arrangement last?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Sorry, I was momentarily distracted. For the foreseeable future. I have agreed with David that this is almost certainly going to last for the rest of this financial year [2019/20]. He is nodding. I hope that is not news to him. I am thinking probably until the end of this financial year [2019/20].

Navin Shah: Will you be ultimately looking to have a full-time Chief Executive?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Yes.

Navin Shah: Would there be any intention to make David’s appointment on a full-time basis rather than the current four days within this period that you have just stated?
[Note: The meeting was adjourned from 11.55am to 12.02pm]

Jennette Arnold: Where were we?

Navin Shah: It was a question about the Chief Executive.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): The moment is that we do not have an absolutely fixed position on about how long David [Lunts] will stay and I would rather keep it that way. David has to discuss with the authorities within the GLA.
One thing I would like to say is even though he is doing only four days a week, David’s interpretation of four days a week is probably equivalent to a lot of other people’s six. I am absolutely satisfied that we are getting an excellent service from David. Indeed, in the relatively short space of time he has been with us, he has enabled us to make considerable progress on the Local Plan EiP, on how we are taking forward the HIF bid and how we are taking forward the land assembly.

Navin Shah: I absolutely agree and I have no issues about either the commitment or the capacity of David, who gives absolutely everything to the job he does. The point is that for a major position at this level, you certainly want a full-time permanent position, which is what you do not have. That is what I am trying to draw out. What is your plan? Are you going to have‑‑

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Certainly, we will not carry on indefinitely with an interim Chief Executive. Once we have done a number of the things we are working through at the moment, we will be in a much better position to go out and recruit a full-time Chief Executive, particularly since we will then be moving into a delivery phase rather than planning and dealing with a lot of these governmental-type challenges. Yes, next year [2020] we will at some point to be specifically determined be recruiting a full-time Chief Executive.

Tom Copley: I wonder if you could update us on the progress you are making towards the new Cultural Quarter in Old Oak. I believe this is one of the proposals that you have. Is that not right?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Cultural is certainly one of the potential uses eventually when we get to the stage of development, but, as I was saying earlier when I was talking about all the different employment opportunities, I am not aware of a specific plan. There was a conversation even before I arrived as Chair with one of the museums - I cannot remember which one - to take space there. That went away because the museum in question - and I cannot remember which one it was, maybe the Victoria and Albert Museum or the Natural History Museum - made other plans. I am very open-minded about the types of activity that we would have at Old Oak and I do not rule out museums, culture or anything, really.

Tom Copley: In your draft Local Plan, it says:
“The OPDC will work with the GLA, neighbouring local authorities and developers to ensure that cultural provision in the area supports the creation of a new Cultural Quarter in Old Oak that can complement nearby cultural clusters...”

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): That is an aspiration in the same way that I would like to see a spinoff from Imperial [College London] on the eastern side of the site. There are a number of things in Park Royal particularly where we are keen to build on the heritage. There are some very interesting older businesses there. I mentioned earlier the fabulous stained-glass business and the owner of that would like to create a whole exhibition and enlarged studio. There is potential for bringing in perhaps a museum. I have had interesting discussions over the last couple of years with the Museum of London. Why not have a Museum of London West? They have one in the east as well as the central site. There is a lot of heritage to build on from the railways in the area. A lot of the architecture is railway inspired and railway dominated. There is plenty of potential and so, yes, that remains one of our aspirations but we do not have a specific plan at the moment.

Tom Copley: Thank you.

Maximising the Opportunities of the OPDC

Tony Devenish: How can the Mayor and the Government help you “sell” OPDC to sovereign wealth funds with the necessary long-term perspective to unlock billions of pounds and therefore tens of thousands of homes and jobs by the mid- 2020s?

Tony Devenish: If we are genuinely Europe’s largest regeneration project, are we not really doing it on the cheap at the moment?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): We certainly have been doing it on the cheap because we have not really had a meaningful capital budget and, happily, that is beginning to change now with the HIF allocation. That is important because, unless there is some credibility behind the public sector offer to start to acquire the land and deliver the infrastructure, then sovereign wealth funds or any other investment fund is going to be slow at coming forward for a project that is pretty long-term and risky without a strong public sector commitment.
Because we are through or nearly through that stage and hopefully very soon we will have a strong planning position and we will have the HIF funding in place and we will start to bring the phase 1A development forward, this starts to become a very marketable proposition indeed. As we all know, large strategic sites with excellent transport infrastructure in this capital city do not come along very often. I would not say that Old Oak is unique but it is very unusual because at the moment there are no major development interests there.
Whether the ultimate solution to bringing in large-scale long-term equity and project finance into the regeneration of Old Oak is, strictly speaking, sovereign wealth money or whether it comes from other quarters I am completely open-minded about. We have seen sovereign wealth money moving into some of the major regeneration sites in London from overseas. Indeed, City Hall is quite a good example, More London Development with Qatari money. On the other hand, there are plenty of opportunities at Old Oak for more domestic funds and domestic partners. There may well be some interesting opportunities for major housing associations and others.
Personally, I am pretty open-minded to who comes in, so long as they are going to be trusted partners, so long as they are in for the long term and so long as - most importantly - they share the vision that we have been talking about this morning for really high-quality growth and a commitment to doing this thing in the best possible way. As I said, how much of that money comes from overseas and how much of that money comes domestically I am pretty open-minded about.

Tony Devenish: In terms of the Mayor’s ambitions, I have never heard the Mayor talk about this project in the way he talks about other things. Do you think there is a poverty of ambition? It is not really in the Mayor’s top one, two, three, four or even top 20 projects at the moment. How can you make the case? He does not seem to ever show any real interest. It is almost like a football team that does not have 11 members in it. David, the question is about you personally and the fact that you do not have a very substantial team in size to pump-prime a project of this size.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Liz and I spent an hour and a quarter with the Mayor a couple of weeks ago to really get him properly briefed and up to speed. That is an indication of how much interest he is taking in the project, getting an hour and a quarter of face time to specifically talk about this and‑‑

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): To interrupt, I asked him. I said, “I need to know you want this to happen”. He was absolutely clear that he is fully behind this. He wants this to happen. He is enthusiastic about it. That is why he detailed off his budget and finance people to make sure that we got what we needed to move forward the work on the HIF implementation. Sorry, I interrupted you.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Yes, but that is exactly the point. The fact that he has been very clear that he wants to press on at pace with our plans and is willing to recommend and approve additional funding to enable us to do that is an indication of the fact that there is strong mayoral support for this particular project. As we get through the process of nailing down the draft plan and it becomes adopted and drawing down the HIF funding, I am very confident that Old Oak will emerge as a much higher profile project for London generally.

Tony Devenish: You touched on a couple of times now the meeting you had with the Mayor’s finance team. Can you tell us any more detail of exactly what they said to you?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): No. There is not a great deal more to be said until you see the Mayoral Direction, which I understand, under your processes and procedures, will be available as soon as the Mayor has signed it. We are keeping our fingers crossed.
We went in and we explained to him how we thought the HIF process was likely to pan out and what we needed over the next three to six months while we nailed the HIF bid. Needless to say, the finance folk were very robust in quizzing us about this because they wanted to make sure that this was a sensible investment of their money. It will in due course, provided all goes well on the HIF, be refunded from the HIF money when we get it but, again, they wanted to interrogate us on the certainties of that. On the back of that, they and David’s finance team went away to draw up the details of a Mayoral Direction.

Tony Devenish: I will not go back to Cargiant and the ransom strip discussion at this meeting now, but it would help if you could, certainly in the near future, write to the Assembly with what plan B is if that does go on. We all know a CPO process is going to go on - if it does happen to be a CPO process - for at least, let us say, a large part of the next mayoral term. It would be nice to know what plan B is if you have to go down that long and protracted process.
The point that the industry is making, as you know as well as I do at the moment - and a lot of AssemblyMember [Tom]Copley’s points I disagree with on one basis - I do not believe that land values are going to keep going up. A lot of the discussions we have at the moment are based on the public sector and land bodies keeping on subsidising more and more public sector projects. I do not believe that is going to happen and so I would like to understand what plan B is, particularly in terms of this ransom strip going forward. Will you be able to mull that over and perhaps write to us in due course?

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): We will do that.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): Yes. This is going to be a major question in front of the planning inspector at the EiP hearing on 18July [2019] and so I am very happy to report back on that with more information in due course.

Tony Devenish: Thank you. Just finally - and you may want to write to me again - I appreciate that this is an industrial project and not just residential units, as much of the rest of our obsession in this building rightly is about, but can you remind me? What is the figure by, say, 2024 of the number of residential units you at the moment are committed to build?
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): By 2024?

Tony Devenish: By the end of the next mayoral term, in five years’ time.
David Lunts (Interim Chief Executive Officer, OPDC): I am very happy to drop you a note on that.

Tony Devenish: Great. I will leave that there. Thank you.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you. The Conservatives are the only group with time. Do I see any questions? No questions, OK.
Can I thank you, Liz and David, for your full and informative answers that you have given us here today? There were a couple of points where Members have asked for follow-up information. That will be sent through to my office and then distributed to all. That leaves me to wish you well in the next phase of this remarkable development that you are both heading. Thank you very much.

Liz Peace CBE (Chair, OPDC): Thank you very much indeed.

Black Cab Drivers

Keith Prince: Do you think you have treated black cab drivers fairly since you became Mayor?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, I believe that London’s taxis provide a reliable and trusted service to the city. Therefore, passengers’ safety and convenience, aided by drivers’ extensive knowledge of our streets, also play an important role in providing accessible transport to all. My 2016 Taxi and Private Hire Action Plan recognised this and demonstrated my commitment to ensuring London continues to have a world-class taxi service.
I have since taken a number of actions so that the taxi industry can thrive. For example, I have ensured that drivers can continue to access bus lanes. TfL has enabled taxi access to 18 more bus lanes at key locations on the TfL road network and has written to London boroughs requesting access to bus lanes on the roads they control. Taxis can access 95% of bus lanes by length on TfL roads.
TfL has delivered a 29% increase in the number of taxi ranks across London, already exceeding its target of an additional 20% by 2020, and it is continuing to press local authorities for additional rank locations.
Another key focus of my Action Plan was encouraging London’s taxi fleet to become a world leader in adopting zero-emission-capable taxis and supporting drivers’ transition to clean vehicles. Taxis continue to play a crucial role in helping London meet our air quality targets with almost 2,000 new electric taxis already licensed. The figure was zero when I became Mayor. These vehicles are hugely popular with passengers and I am proud to see so many on our streets.
To support drivers, TfL has restructured the delicensing scheme. This scheme provides up to £10,000 to those who trade in their older, dirty vehicles early, double the maximum under the previous scheme from BorisJohnson when he was the Mayor. TfL has also set up a £5million fund to help drivers of Euro5 taxis to confer to liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and continues to contribute towards a £7,500 grant for the purchase of a zero-emission-capable taxi.
To maintain the availability of wheelchair-accessible transport in central London, taxis are exempt from paying in the Congestion Charge Zone and the ULEZ. TfL also recently published the results of a consultation on changes to Tooley Street. I listened to the trade and taxis will be allowed to access, along with buses and cycles, while other road users will not.
Finally, TfL has published a brochure which encourages people from all walks of life to become London taxi drivers.

Keith Prince: Thank you, MrMayor. I do not know if you can help here, MrMayor, but you may or may not be aware that NSL runs the phone service for taxis, both the private hire and the black cabs, if they have to phone in and get relicensing appointments. At the moment, they are having real problems with this phone service. The average wait time, according to TfL, is about 12.5minutes, which is an awfully long time. I was on the phone to a taxi driver last night who had to wait on more than one occasion for over one hour. There are drivers out there who are aggregating up to 11 hours because they cannot wait forever if they get a job or whatever. It really is a major issue for them.
I was just wondering, MrMayor, whether you could help by using your good officers to have a word in whichever ear necessary to find out what the problem is and resolve it.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I thank the AssemblyMember for raising this real concern for taxi drivers. I undertake to go away and look into this and write back to him as he has raised this. I will do that very shortly because it is a real source of concern, I bet, for those taxi drivers. I thank him for raising that and I will look into this.

Keith Prince: Thank you. I really appreciate that, MrMayor. Thank you very much. Could I also raise the issue of the taxi age limit? You may recall that we had a fairly civilised discussion last time and I have asked you more than once if you would be prepared to meet with me and representatives from the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA) to discuss your plans for reducing the taxi age.
I absolutely understand why you want to reduce the taxi age. According to TfL’s figures, it would save something like 8,000 grams of nitrogen oxides (NOx) per kilometre, which is very laudable. However, I did explain to you at the time, MrMayor, that the proposal by the LTDA that I wanted to discuss with you would save 12,000 grams of NOx per kilometre, which is 50% more. You said that you were aware of that and said that you did not need to have the meeting. That is fine. I respect the fact that you may not want to meet me, but you have now introduced the proposals that we were discussing. You have not, as far as I am aware, responded to the LTDA. By so doing, you are actually putting out 50% more pollution than necessary. I really cannot understand why you have done that.

Sadiq Khan: I am sorry that the AssemblyMember is out of the loop, but the LTDA has met with my Deputy Mayor [for Transport], HeidiAlexander, and those meetings have taken place since the last time we spoke. I am sorry you are out the loop in relation to that. It is an issue that you had better raise with the LTDA rather than with me.
One of the things that TfL is also doing is looking into the technological solution suggested by the LTDA, which is to retrofit the Euro 5s so that they are compliant. It is not yet ready, but TfL is working with them to see if there is a technical solution to those Euro 5 taxis to give them a greater life expectancy. It is not true to say that any of the options put forward by the LTDA or others can address the real concerns caused by taxis causing issues around particulate matter and NOx into the air.
Just so we are clear, taxis currently contribute 25% of nitrogen dioxide and NOx road transport emissions in central London. Because of the improvements made elsewhere by the ULEZ - they are not covered by the ULEZ for the reasons I have said in my answer - they will contribute more in percentage terms to NOx, 30% and going higher. Unless we take action, we cannot meet the legal requirements placed upon us as a city and will be in breach.
That is why it is important to take this action. That is why we will be consulting widely and we have announced our plans. If there is a technical solution that makes us get there quicker, of course we will follow this up, and that is why TfL is talking to the LTDA.

Keith Prince: Yes, but the problem is that by reducing the life expectancy of these cabs, it does not make it economic to make those retrofits that would reduce the NOx. That is the whole argument.
Also, I do not know if you are aware of this, but a lot of people bought their taxis with a 15-year-life with a view to using them until their retirement. This is causing major problems in the trade for people who want to retire. It is also causing problems for people who want to hire cabs because the value of the cabs have gone down. A lot of the larger hiring companies have sold off their older cabs and have taken advantage of your £10,000. That then means we have a number of drivers now who cannot find a cab to do their jobs. You are affecting drivers livelihoods by this method. If you had stuck with what the LTDA had said, one, that would not happen, two, you would get a better saving and, three, we would have more cabs that are producing less NOx. I do not understand why you were not prepared to have the meeting and you were not prepared to help the taxi trade.

Sadiq Khan: I have explained in answer to a previous question. I do not want to repeat myself because I may be interrupted. We have met with the LTDA, not just TfL but also the Deputy Mayor HeidiAlexander has met with the LTDA. TfL is looking into the technological solutions that the LTDA is suggesting.
The good news is that because I doubled what was being offered by the previous Mayor, we are seeing more and more taxis moving towards the electric option, going from zero when your friend [Boris Johnson] was the Mayor to 2,000 in record time. We have increased the delicensing scheme as well. We have also across London, which had not talked about now because you must welcome this, record numbers of rapid-charging points reserved for black taxis, more than 70, and we have a really good plan to expand that even further.
If the LTDA has some concerns, they know how to reach TfL. They know how to reach me and Deputy Mayor HeidiAlexander. However, we will not always agree. You would not expect us to always agree with what has been said by representatives of various groups. Sometimes we will agree. We will try to work through them to make sure we find a solution that works for everyone.

Keith Prince: You are being a bit disingenuous here by claiming that under the previous Mayor there were zero electric taxis and under you there are 2,000 because there were no electric taxis to be bought. Also, you promised five electric taxis and there is only one.
Let us not get into a row about this. Are you prepared, if the evidence is there for you, to reverse this reducing the life of these older taxis if they can be retrofitted and their life can be extended and it becomes economical and they pollute less?

Sadiq Khan: I have been quite clear that we need to clean the air in London. How we get there is up for discussion, but you have had three years in relation to plans from 2016 until 2019. We still do not have a solution from you as how we address the issue of the diesel taxis adding to the air quality crisis in London. Your friend of eight years before then made no progress in relation to electric taxis, in relation to a more generous delicensing scheme and also in relation to other things that are helping the black taxi trade.
There are more bus lanes since I became Mayor, more taxi ranks since I became Mayor, more encouraging the Knowledge since I became Mayor and more stuff around how you pay for your fare with contactless cards. We can talk about some of the challenges faced by the black taxi trade and they are big challenges and I accept that, but even you would have to give some credit to the current Mayor for the steps taken to assist the black taxi trade since 2016 at the same time as cleaning up the dangerous air in our city.

Keith Prince: I will put this question to you. First of all, I have been working over the three years to help the taxi trade and put forward the idea - along, I believe, with AssemblyMemberPidgeon - around LPG, which took a long time to get accepted. That was very slow there. I put it to you that the bulk of the people driving those black cabs at the moment will not say that you have done a good job for them. In fact, there is a load of reasons why they would not agree with that, but I do not want to get into an argument and I would like to finish the session there, please.

Jennette Arnold: That was not a question.

Croydon Tram Crash Investigation

Keith Prince: Will you appoint an independent investigation to review why TfL failed to supply critical Tram safety evidence to the Croydon Tram Crash investigators?

Sadiq Khan: My thoughts remain with all those affected by the terrible events at Sandilands and I would remind the Assembly seven people lost their lives and 60 passengers were injured, some very seriously. TfL and I are committed to supporting all those affected by the tragedy in any way we can and our attention is focused on preventing anything like this from happening again.
I understand concerns around the British Transport Police investigation in Sandilands has not yet been completed but TfL has always co‑operated fully with all the investigating bodies. It has also apologised unreservedly and repeatedly for the human error that meant a single report that was commissioned following a separate incident on the tram network after Sandilands was not immediately shared with the regulators. Once this problem had become clear, it was rectified. It also notified the investigating bodies of this separate incident as soon as it happened.
TfL produced a report for its Board in July 2018 explaining why the internal audit report was not issued to the external organisations investigating Sandilands immediately on its completion. This report is available on the TfL website and it can be found through a quick internet search. The TfL Board report provides a full and adequate explanation. I am unclear what the point of a further investigation would be, particularly bearing in mind the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) carried out a thorough investigation into Sandilands, including forming an independent view on the issue of fatigue management and even including a summary of TfL’s audit in its final investigation report. TfL also commissioned an independent investigation into Sandilands as well as a separate fatigue report.
The focus of TfL is to make sure such a tragedy never happens again. Significant progress has been made on the recommendations set out by the RAIB, and TfL has completed some of the vital recommendations, including reduced speeds, enhanced signage and a system that detects fatigue and distraction. Most recently, TfL has thickened the glass in all tram doors and windows by 75%. By the end of this year a new automatic braking system will be in operation on the London network, which will a first for trams in the United Kingdom. The tram operator, First Group, has also made significant improvements to its management of fatigue, including new shift patterns and better work‑life balance, and has shared this with the wider tram industry. TfL has also taken an active leadership role in the UK Light Rail Safety Standards Board to ensure that the whole industry benefits from the significant and ground‑breaking safety improvements being made here in London.

Keith Prince: Is that a yes or a no, MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: I can read the paragraph again if you like. What I said was I am unclear what the point of a further investigation would be, particularly bearing in mind RAIB carried out a thorough investigation.

Keith Prince: For the benefit of those who cannot see the questions, it is a very simple question that purely requires a yes or no answer. It is will you appoint an independent investigator to review why TfL failed to supply critical tram safety evidence to the Croydon tram crash investigation? It is a very simple question and just requires a yes or no.

Sadiq Khan: The answer, Chair, is I am unclear what the point would be of a further investigation, particularly bearing in mind the RAIB carried out a thorough investigation into Sandilands, including forming an independent view on the issue.

Keith Prince: Just yes or no.

Sadiq Khan: I am unclear what the point of a further investigation would be, particularly bearing in mind‑‑

Keith Prince: Can I assume that is a no, then, MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, we can go in circles if you would like me to.

Jennette Arnold: No, the Mayor is entitled to answer the question in the way he chooses.

Keith Prince: No.

Jennette Arnold: You can interpret it as a yes or no.

Keith Prince: No, it is a very simple‑‑

Jennette Arnold: Have you answered the question, MrMayor?

Keith Prince: He has answered the question. MrMayor, you used a lot of time in answering the question. It is a very simple, closed question. Closed questions merely require a yes or no answer. It is very simple. All he is doing is filibustering, Chair.
If I can continue, I will take that to be a no because you have not said yes. I do not understand. You see, I was quite happy to ‑‑ I think someone on the proverbial ‑‑ 12 people on the omnibus going through whatever common it is, Clapham, I think. I was quite prepared to believe there was just human error in this but it seems lots of people are conspiring to stop there being an investigation and that is very strange. Why, for instance, when I put my motion ‑‑ which was proposed by the GMB, a union that I believe you are a member of and certainly very closely connected with, both personally and financially. It put a question in saying they wanted an independent investigation. I merely put their motion to this Assembly, asking for that investigation. There seemed to be general consensus that was a good idea and then all of a sudden there seemed to be a change of heart and there was a desperate rush at the very last minute to try to negate that motion, which of course was ruled out of order, quite rightly, by the Chair.
Then there was another desperate scramble to try to find some words that would make the motion almost meaningless. Thankfully, those members of other parties, other than those who obviously were instructed to do your bidding, MrMayor, voted against it and we put down the motion by the Assembly that there should be an independent investigation. I am asking you about that motion, the fact that this Assembly, cross‑party ‑‑ Labour was obviously instructed to abstain but the cross‑party motion was that there should be an independent investigation. I am asking you whether you would appoint a QC to have an independent investigation.
The more you say no, the more you filibuster, the more you try to dodge the question, the more I am thinking there is more to this than meets the eye, because at the very beginning, a few months ago, I thought somebody mucked up, but every time this issue comes up we get filibustered and we get blocked. It is very clear to me there is something to hide, because if there was nothing to hide you would follow the request of your own union to do an investigation. You would follow the request of this Assembly, cross‑party, to have an independent investigation. If you are saying no to that, MrMayor, what do you have to hide, mate? That is the question.

Jennette Arnold: You do not call the Mayor “mate”.
MrMayor, the motion that is being talked about by the Assembly Member will in due course come to your office and you will respond to that motion. I am happy for you to wait to do that.

Sadiq Khan: I will do that. It is the first time in history that a Member has filibustered his own time. Can you give him more time? I do enjoy his three‑minute questions.

Jennette Arnold: No, there is no more time. The response will come through the normal‑‑

Keith Prince: There is more time, Chair.

Jennette Arnold: I am sorry. It is my eyes. I do not have my glasses.

Keith Prince: It is the Mayor who is trying to filibuster, not me.

Jennette Arnold: Can we have a question from you, a precise question, so that we can bring this together?

Keith Prince: I have asked the same question three times, Chair, and I am still waiting to say yes or no. I am a salesperson. I know the difference between an open and a closed question. It is a closed question and it just needs a yes or no answer, but he is ducking it. He is afraid. You are frit, are you not? You are frit to answer the question, are you not?

Sadiq Khan: Can I say as a lawyer that I like being advised by a salesman about open and closed questions? I tell him this: the answer to my question was quite straightforward. I am unclear what the point of a further investigation would be.
I point it out because a serious allegation has been made of conspiracy and it is very important I respond to the allegation made of conspiracy. At the 22January2018 meeting of TfL’s Safety, Sustainability and Human Resources (SSHR) Panel the Chair asked if the audit report had been sent to the external bodies investigating the Sandilands incident. He had previously proposed this should be done. TfL’s Director of Health and Safety said she believed it had been sent but would confirm.
Following the meeting it was discovered that the audit report had not in fact been sent to the external bodies. TfL’s Health and Safety Department was responsible for sharing this audit report with the external bodies but, in error, it was not sent as originally thought. This was clearly an oversight that was rectified as soon as TfL realised this had occurred. TfL’s Director of Health and Safety also contacted the Chair of the SSHR Panel to inform him of the error, to apologise and to confirm that the audit report had been sent. It is really important, when allegations of conspiracy are said that they are backed up with evidence.
I want to make this point, Chair. I am very proud to be a member of the GMB and very proud of the difference our trade unions make to our society.

Jennette Arnold: No, the question is still with your Member. I do understand your concern as a constituency Member.
AssemblyMemberPrince, have you finished your questions, given that your colleague, who is the constituency Member, would like to come in?

Keith Prince: I am very happy to give the floor to my colleague.

Williams Review

Florence Eshalomi: What representations will you be making to the Williams Review in respect of London’s over-ground rail services?

Sadiq Khan: The current rail system is broken beyond repair, with large dysfunctional franchises not fit for purpose. Customers have suffered substandard service for too long, so I welcome the Williams Review. Both my Deputy Mayor for Transport [Heidi Alexander] and TfL officials have met with the review team a number of times, including on KeithWilliams’ very first day in the role, and also last week as part of the Urban Transport Group, where together with cities across the UK they made the case for devolution. They have presented my view that devolving services and infrastructure would give Londoners and commuters the high standards of services seen on the London Overground and TfL rail.
The benefits of devolution are clear and TfL submitted a response to the review, making the case for it. When services have transferred to London Overground or TfL over rail, the evidence speaks for itself. The frequency of trains increases, every station is staffed, delays decrease and accessibility improves. The ability to run an integrated network controlled and operated at a local level has been the backbone of London’s success as a leading global city. For local services in and around London devolution would mean TfL rather than the Department for Transport (DfT) being the contracting authority and TfL rather than Network Rail taking on infrastructure management on these routes.
TfL has separately put forward a compelling case for a London suburban metro in its strategic case for metroisation. This would relieve congestion and improve frequencies and journeys for Londoners. Both TfL’s response to the review and the strategic case for metroisation have been published on TfL’s website. Separately the DfT has begun reviewing the Thames Link, Southern and the Great Northern franchise. TfL is working closely with them on this and I understand that the initial discussion has been productive. TfL looks forward to continuing to work with the DfT and the Williams Review to improve the rail network.
Florence Eshalomi AM: Thank you, MrMayor. In addition to that, what additional feedback have you had from KeithWilliams or the DfT in respect of the five recommendations that TfL made to the Williams Review back in March?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, it is probably unwise for me to give a running commentary, but the meetings, according to the briefings I can tell you about, are productive and positive. We know that earlier this week MrWilliams called for somebody independent from Government to be in charge of data separations. We will review what else he said in his speech. In line with our submission, MrWilliams has publicly stated a number of times that passengers must be at the heart of the railway service. A one-size-fits-all model does not work. Without going into details, we are optimistic that there will be some progress made, because frankly the status quo is not working.

Florence Eshalomi: That is really important. I attended a Southwark Assembly meeting yesterday and a number of issues raised by both councillors and a number of community groups there was around the fact that the overcrowding and congestion on a number of routes through Southwark is quite worrying. They want passengers put back at the heart of that. Do you feel that if we have PrimeMinisterBorisJohnson elected next week, will he advocate for rail devolution down to London on a number of those key routes, including the Govia Thameslink Railway route, which is up for renegotiation, or to scrap that franchise in 2021? Time is ticking on that.

Sadiq Khan: Boris Johnson, when he was the Mayor, was a passionate advocate for devolution. He was the Mayor whom the Government agreed with to devolve these train operator companies down to London. It beggars belief that he would change his mind if he becomes Prime Minister and performs a U‑turn. I am optimistic and excited that if BorisJohnson becomes Prime Minister we will make rapid progress in the devolution of rail services for TfL and London.

Florence Eshalomi: It would be helpful, MrMayor, maybe, if BorisJohnson is elected Prime Minister, we could write a strong letter reminding him of his previous commitments and outlining especially the fact that all the additional contracts and staff rotas have to be discussed with TfL if that route is going to be devolved down.

Sadiq Khan: Yes, and to reassure you, when BorisJohnson was Mayor he agreed with the Government on this deal. It was only when the Secretary of State changed from PatrickMcLoughlin [MP] to ChrisGrayling [MP] that the Government performed a U‑turn. I am optimistic about the chances of this happening sooner rather than later with Boris Johnson, the former Mayor, as the Prime Minister.

Florence Eshalomi: Thank you.

support for young people during the summer holidays

Jennette Arnold: How are you ensuring London’s children receive the support they need during summer holidays?

Sadiq Khan: The summer holidays are a time when children and young people are especially vulnerable and there is a huge amount of pressure on families. Government cuts have made providing local services almost impossible. That is why this summer [2019], as well as all the other projects we are supporting to help keep young Londoners away from crime, my Young Londoners Fund will be hell‑bent to deliver free activities to over 8,300 young people. To give you some examples, SkyWay Charity is providing free multisport sessions for over 400 children in Hackney. Reaching Higher will be offering 200 young people in Croydon a chance to get involved in drama, the creative arts and, importantly, provide hot meals every day.
My Summer Sports Activity Fund has invested in 43 projects that will offer a huge range of sporting activities to 3,400 young people, all in areas that have high rates of serious youth violence. My Made in London partnership with Apple, the first of its kind, will also offer free coding, producing and filmmaking workshops for 4,000 teenagers over the summer. My Stepping Stones programme will be providing summer school for over 400 children to help them prepare for the move from primary to secondary school.
These opportunities and hundreds more will be listed on my Our London Map and promoted throughout my summer Activity Communications campaign. Several other City Hall programmes will also be reaching out to young people over the summer. This includes our specialist London gang exit programme and our Culture Seeds programme, which is funding 15 different community‑led creative activities across London for young Londoners.
The London borough of Culture in Waltham Forest will also offer free events including carnival workshops for young people and their families across Chingford, Leyton and Leytonstone and on 4 August [2019] thousands of young people will attend the Waltham Forest Mela.
As Mayor I am doing all I can to invest in these kinds of services and activities for young Londoners. This has provided new opportunities to young Londoners who are at risk of getting involved in gangs and violent crime. However, to be honest, I cannot undo the damage of years of Government austerity alone. We urgently need the Government to help.

Jennette Arnold: Can I ask you to send in writing the programme of activities that is going to be undertaken by the Violence Reduction Unit? We can share that with all Members and they can disseminate it.
Can I start by commending the work of InspectorAlanDavies and the MPS officers and partners who carry out work under the umbrella of Operation Zero? As you know, that is the MPS response to the goal that I know we both share and the majority of well‑meaning Londoners share, to have zero cutting ‑ that is any form of female of genital mutilation (FGM) ‑ in our city. We are all committed to doing everything that we can to stop that.
Can you update me on when you recently had any conversations with the appropriate Government officers about this? Also, we know from the evidence that the long summer holiday is the time when these young vulnerable women - who, can I just say, are born in London and are British, the majority - are then taken out of this country and taken elsewhere to be mutilated. Have you had recent conversations about the dangers posed?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, you have bravely been talking about this for years now. It is worth saying out in the open what you are referring to, which is Londoners are being taken to countries around the world, sometimes to ‘countries of origin’ to have FGM done to them. What is happening this summer [2019] ‑ and the Home Office deserve commendations from us for doing this ‑ the Home Office is making sure, with the police, there are staff available at the major airports that are going to some of the countries that we know, from evidence, this has been taking place, to try to spot a young Londoner, often girls, who may be being taken to these countries to have FGM performed upon them, to stop that happening, to give advice where there is a concern and to use the law at its best. The law has been changed, as you know, in relation to both criminal remedies and civil remedies as well. We are working closely with the Home Office in relation to that. MOPAC is on the stakeholder group that does lots of work around this, sharing best practice.
The third part of this is education. We have to make sure that mums in particular, who may themselves have been on the receiving end of FGM, do not think it is acceptable for their children to also have this done to them. Some of the work we are doing, which does not get much attention, is in relation to the training programmes in the communities that it takes place in. You know about this from your work in this in the past. The Harmful Practices Programme, just to reassure you, has delivered 46 sessions to 976 workers and these workers will cascade this out to the communities. We have to be vigilant on this and I am pleased you have raised this at this Mayor’s Question Time, particularly as it is the last one before the summer holidays.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you very much for all that you do and for everybody involved. Our goal is zero cutting in our city. Thank you.

Precision Manufactured Housing

Nicky Gavron: Last month you launched the #PRISM App, a global first Digital Design tool for designing Precision Manufactured Housing. This will allow developers, manufacturers and designers to assess the viability and best use of each site for Modular Housing.
Will you require the use of PRISM when you commission work on some of the Land you own?

Sadiq Khan: I am very pleased that City Hall has been able to support the pioneering new PRISM app to promote precision-manufactured housing. As you know, PRISM is open-source and free to use and it is the first city-wide tool of its type anywhere in the world.
I was also very pleased, Deputy Chairman, that AssemblyMemberGavron was able to join my Deputy Mayor for Housing [and Residential Development, James Murray] at the official launch of PRISM last month. AssemblyMemberGavron has consistently taken a lead in encouraging precision-manufactured housing in London. Her research on behalf of the Assembly has made a critical contribution to the debate and promoted the development of PRISM.
Precision manufacturing describes a system of home building that relies on individual components being manufactured in a factory, transported to a location and then completed and assembled on a site. This contrasts with traditional construction, which involves the structure and components of the home being developed onsite, typically using bricks. Developers or architects can use PRISM to sketch out an initial design and then this information is used by manufacturers to help them design a suitable approach. We know that the construction workforce is ageing, which means it could reduce by up to 25% within a decade, so this is a real opportunity in this area.
The response at last month’s launch event underlined that this is something the industry has been crying out for. I believe we should let the new tool be tried out and become embedded in the sector before making its use a formal requirement for particular sites. However, we will keep working with homebuilders on sites where the GLA has an interest, as well as other sites more widely, to encourage the use of PRISM and help give precision manufacturing of housing the further boost it needs.
Nicky Gavron AM: Thank you, MrMayor. I want to congratulate you for your leadership in commissioning and then having the app created, the digital design tool. I recently trailered it before it was launched at an international conference of cities from all over the world. They all wanted to have it and they can. They can because it is open-source and because it is free but, as your office has recognised and as the report the Assembly did recognised, there are barriers. Although the industry is poised for a step-change in delivery, there are these barriers.
One of the main barriers is the lack of interoperability or standardisation between different modular or factory‑built systems. PRISM of course helps overcome this. There is also another barrier, which is that at the moment developers often think about modular homes rather late in the planning development process, when in fact the whole advantage of manufactured homes is compromised in terms of speed, quality and cost.
PRISM allows you to design it in and configure your layout of modular homes from the outset. You can even do it before you have bought the site and it takes about quarter of hour, apparently, and there is no lengthy and costly assessment, so it is very easy for developers and contractors and our own people in TfL and so on to see if it is going to work on a particular site. I was wondering, continuity of demand is also important. PRISM will help with the volume, but only you and the rest of the public sector really - and of course the private sector and your joint venture partnerships - can help with the demand side.
I was just wondering how you are going to work with your housing associations, your strategic partnerships in actually to a certain extent making sure there is use of this.

Sadiq Khan: Again, thank you for what you said in your question as well. The good news is JamesMurray, the Deputy Mayor for Housing [and Residential Development], and myself met with a whole host of developers this week. Mr[Mark]Farmer [Chief Executive, Cast] was there, who has been responsible for a lot of this work, and this came up as well. Some of the projects we are funding are supporting this sort of work. We have reached deals with Pocket Living, Apex, Airspace and Place which will support the delivery of new affordable homes built with precision manufacturing methods, so we are supporting the market in relation to doing so.
Through our Land Fund that I set up, we are also in contract with Swan Housing to develop six small sites, many of which will be manufactured in Swan’s own cross-laminated timber factory in Basildon.

Nicky Gavron: That is good.

Sadiq Khan: We are doing this to try to support the market. I suspect that once some start going up, it will give confidence to others to do this as well, but we are doing our bit to support precision manufacturing. It is part of a package of measures we are doing to improve the diversity of the workforce as well and to encourage others to get involved in construction as well.

Nicky Gavron: Thank you for that.

Affordable Housing Funding

Tom Copley: Now the GLA has identified that you need seven times as much annual funding to build the affordable homes we need, and there is in particular a £280,000 “surplus gap” that needs to be plugged for each social rent home, will you impress upon the new Prime Minister the urgent need for this funding, without caveats that it must be used for affordable home ownership?

Sadiq Khan: Since being elected I have made the case to every Prime Minister of the day that London needs a step‑change of investment in genuinely affordable housing and particularly in council homes and homes for social rent. Without prejudicing the outcome of the current contest, if BorisJohnson does become the next Prime Minister I will also remind him of his support just last year for the fiscal devolution required, in his words, “To build the homes our children and grandchildren are going to need”.
I am using all the powers and resources we currently have to get more council, social rented and other genuinely affordable homes built. My record shows we are making a difference. Last year we started more genuinely affordable homes and more social rented homes than in any year since City Hall took control of affordable housing investment. Through the first ever City Hall programme dedicated to council home building we have also helped get more new council homes underway than in any year since 1985 but we desperately need more investment and powers from the Government.
Only this month I published a report assessing the amount of Government funding required to deliver 32,500 new affordable homes a year between 2022 and 2032. This is the number set out in the draft London Plan and the report assumes 70% would be for social rent. The report, which was developed with the G15 housing associations, councils and housing experts, calculated a funding gap or around £284,000 for every social rented home. While some of this gap can be covered by contributions from developers and other resources, there is still a gap of £4.9billion a year that needs to be covered by Government funding. This is around seven times what we currently receive. Whoever leads the next Government must not only provide the right level of funding but do so without strings being attached to prevent us using it to deliver the social rented homes that Londoners so desperately need.

Tom Copley: Thank you very much for that answer, MrMayor. You have pre‑empted a couple of my supplementary questions. I think fiscal devolution is very, very important. I hope that ‑ I cannot believe I am about to say this ‑ [potential] PrimeMinisterJohnson will follow through on his commitments to fiscal devolution. Also, I agree with you that strings should not be attached. The need in London is for social housing and therefore the bulk of the funding should go to social housing.
Your report commissioned by the GLA with the housing associations found that 30% of the cost of delivering the affordable homes that we need over ten years would be for land and it would cost £33billion. What could be done to reduce that land cost?

Sadiq Khan: This is an important point, the cost of land in London. There are a few things that could be done quite easily: how land is valued. In my view it should be valued on the existing use rather than a speculative use. That is really important. The powers of land assembly are important. We have a good examples in London like the former Holloway Prison site, where Islington Council did a planning brief for the former Holloway Prison site and said, should a developer want to purchase the land, when it comes to applying for permission, its expectation was that 50% of the homes would be genuinely affordable. Lo and behold, the value of the land stayed at a sensible level and it has been bought by a developer. They have partnered with Peabody and we are helping them through our land fund. 60% of the homes there are going to be genuinely affordable and there will be a women’s centre there as well.
It shows a difference a good council can make. Imagine if the Government was on the side of working with councils to reduce the value of land in London, being at levels that would make affordable homes unviable in many parts of London.

Tom Copley: By way of contrast, of course, another example from a little while ago, in Islington, the Camden borders, the Mount Pleasant site, of course, was approved with just 25% of affordable housing, after which Royal Mail then went on to sell the site at a huge profit. That stands as a stark contrast.
Finally, when you took office I believe the percentage of affordable homes that were being approved across London was just 13% and it has now gone up to 36%. Do you think, therefore, that getting rid of the affordable housing requirements and targets that you have imposed would be a big mistake?

Sadiq Khan: Anybody who wants to reduce the expectations I have from developers to have 50% affordable housing to a lower figure must accept that will lead to less affordable homes being built in London. Independent experts have said one of the reasons why we have gone from 13% of homes being given permission that are affordable - using a dodgy definition has gone from 30% dodgy to 36% genuinely affordable - is because of the planning rules put in place since I became Mayor in 2016. I am hoping that one of those standing against me to be the Mayor has that sort of barmy policy because it will mean that I will win in May next year [2019].

Tom Copley: Thank you, MrMayor.

Permitted Development

Tom Copley: Is allowing commercial and industrial buildings to be converted into 12 square metre flats, without full planning permission, the solution to London’s housing crisis?

Sadiq Khan: No, substandard housing is not the answer to the housing crisis. I have said in my draft London Plan and my Housing Strategy how we can deliver the high-quality housing Londoners need through good growth, not growth at any cost. I believe having minimum housing space standards is a vital element of delivering good growth. Not having enough space and living space has a negative impact on people’s quality of life and on children’s social and emotional development. Minimum space requirements and standards are therefore critical to improving Londoners’ health and wellbeing.
Deputy Chairman, Assembly MemberCopley’s report, Slums of the Future - Permitted Development Conversions in London, helpfully highlights the consequences of the Government’s misguided approach to permitted development (PD). Not only have office to residential PD rights led to extremely poor-quality housing, it has eroded the stock of viable occupied offices in the capital, contrary to the Government’s stated aim. Because of PD, because it is not subject to planning policy requirements, schemes going through are not required to deliver affordable housing. The report done by Assembly MemberCopley stated that of the 15,929 new homes built through PD in London since 2013, shockingly, only 71 were defined as affordable. That is just 0.4%, so I believe the power over these PD rights should either devolve to London, or in the absence of that happening, they should be removed altogether.

Tom Copley: Thank you very much for that answer, MrMayor. One of the really galling things about this of course is that it is absolutely possible under the former planning system for offices to be converted to flats, but there would then be the requirement that affordable housing would have to be delivered and of course they would have to meet minimum space standards in the report published that you mentioned. The smallest flat that we found was ten metres square in Croydon. That is not a home. That is a box to exist in. One company in Croydon, Caridon, received at least £8million in housing benefit payments to house hundreds of tenants in flats of that size.
Do you think it is acceptable, not just that these do not contribute to our affordable housing and infrastructure needs, but also in fact that they generate huge profits for landlords at the state’s expense through housing benefit?

Sadiq Khan: No, I do not. I would rather taxpayers’ money be used for bricks and mortar rather than giving profit to private landlords with substandard housing. What we are going to see is a massive transformation in home-building in London and it should be homes that are affordable to Londoners as well.

Tom Copley: The Government - the current outgoing Government, anyway - is proposing to expand PD rights so that offices and light industrial buildings can actually be demolished and replaced with a building of the same scale without planning permission. I think, by the way, we have cross-party agreement that we do not agree with these PD conversions.
Can I urge you to impress upon the new Prime Minister and the new Government that we do not want these in London, and at the very least, even if they do not want to get rid of PD rights themselves, at the very least to ensure that they have to comply with affordable housing requirements and they have to comply with minimum space standards?

Sadiq Khan: I will do so, but the good news is every single member of the Conservative Assembly Group, except for one, supports the candidature of BorisJohnson and they probably have more influence over him than I would. I will lobby [potential] Prime MinisterJohnson, but I am sure the Conservative Group on the Assembly will also lobby MrJohnson because it is really important that we have good quality homes built for ordinary Londoners that are fit for their children and grandchildren as well.

Tony Arbour: Thank you very much.

Consultants and Agency Staff

Susan Hall: What progress have you made in reducing the overuse of consultants and agency staff across the GLA Group?

Sadiq Khan: There has been significant progress across the Greater London Authority (GLA) Group in cutting the numbers of consultants and agency staff compared to the practices I inherited when I became Mayor in 2016. There is a focus on using resources wisely and ensuring value for money. Staffing and project budgets are allocated during the budget‑setting process. These budgets are closely monitored throughout, and overspending has to be accounted for by senior officers.
As in all organisations it is sometimes necessary to appoint agency staff or consultants for specific reasons. Temporary staff cover short‑term vacancies in established posts or peaks in work, while consultants are used to provide technical expertise for specific projects. It often simply is not possible to recruit permanently when a specialist is required only for a short‑term assignment, after which the GLA would have no requirement for their skills. There is ongoing work underway to continue reducing spending on both agency staff and consultants and the GLA are strictly in control of spend in these areas. Budgets should not be used on consultants and agency staff unless it is really necessary to do so and approval of any spend is thoroughly scrutinised.
TfL has committed to reducing the use of non‑permanent staff. At the end of 2015 there were over 3,000. This has been reduced to 1,192 by March 2019, saving £100million a year. In addition, the LFB has reduced its use of consultants by 25% since 2014, resulting in budget savings of over 40%. MOPAC has reduced its agency workers from 6.6% of the workforce in 2018 to 2.6% today. Here at the GLA there has been a tight grip of agency spend. The Chief Officer MaryHarpley and her top team have done significant work to ensure that we are only using agency staff when we have a real need. The Chief Officer has also introduced measures to speed up recruitment times for established posts, which means that vacant posts are filled more quickly, shortening the length of time that agency staff provide temporary cover. I expect the numbers of agency staff to decrease on the back of these tighter controls and improvements to recruitment timescales.

Susan Hall: Excellent, that is good news, MrMayor. However, in a written question to me you said that it was not possible to provide an annual breakdown of expenditure on consultants and temporary staff. How can you get a grip of it properly if you are not measuring it?

Sadiq Khan: We are measuring it. I am not sure what you refer to. Apologies. I do not remember the letter. On a quarterly basis we do monitor in the direction we are going. What we are trying to do is reduce the recruitment times to reduce the gap. I had happy to look into what you have been told. I cannot recollect the letter. I am sorry.

Susan Hall: It would be good if you could look into it because the answer on the consultant side was:
“Expenditure on consultants is set out in decision forms and published on the GLA’s website as ... the category is so broad that it is not possible to provide a breakdown.”
It must be if it is there. Either it is there or it is not there. It is all very unclear. This is why we asked the question.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, can I look into this? I note the Chair of the Budget and Performance Committee [Gareth Bacon AM] is sitting next to you. I am surprised we cannot do because I am sure the Budget and Performance Committee looked into it. Can I take this away and come back to you and write to both the Chair and to SusanHall as well?

Susan Hall: That would be very helpful, thank you. Some of these staff members who are receiving money from the public payroll are being paid through the public service companies and therefore are using this as a tax dodge. Do you think it is acceptable that people receiving public money are minimising their tax in this way?

Sadiq Khan: No, that should not be happening. As I have explained in my answer, there are sometimes reasons why we have no choice but to use either agency staff or consultants. What it should not be is a way of avoiding or evading the proper paying of taxes. If you want to do it confidentially, you can always let me know if you know of any cases where that is happening. I am happy to look into it to make sure it is not happening.

Susan Hall: To absolutely confirm, you think it is unacceptable that people receiving public money are minimising their tax through public services companies?

Sadiq Khan: If City Hall is paying for this‑‑

Susan Hall: In general. What do you think?

Sadiq Khan: I cannot answer in general. I can answer more specifically, which is for City Hall. As far as City Hall is concerned, we do not think it is a good idea and I would not want that to happen. If the Assembly Member knows of anybody who the City Hall is paying to try to avoid or evade taxes, please let me know.

Susan Hall: OK. I know of somebody but I think she is now on the payroll and I will not mention her name here anyway. Thank you, MrMayor.